Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

From multicultural differences to different multiculturalisms : locating Canada in international debates… Hunter, Lauren 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2007-317891.pdf [ 18.51MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0100644.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100644-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100644-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100644-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100644-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100644-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100644-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

From Multicultural Differences to Different Multiculturalisms: Locating Canada in International Debates on Gender, Antiracism and Human Rights by L a u r e n H u n t e r B . A . , The University of British Columbia, 2000 M . A . , The University of British Columbia, 2002 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Women's and Gender Studies) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A October 2007 © Lauren Hunter, 2007 Abstract i i State-sponsored muiticulturalism has faced significant social and political challenges in recent years, resulting in the scaling back of most muiticulturalism policies in Western nations in favour of more assimilationist models. Against the trend, Canada has remained firm in its commitment to its version of the policy, and continues to assert at a governmental level that muiticulturalism is highly valued. This raises questions about why Canadian muiticulturalism appears to have survived the challenges that are causing the collapse of other state-sponsored multiculturalisms. The thesis suggests that muiticulturalism policies contain foundational philosophies, which are informed by historical rationales that originally justified the creation o f muiticulturalism, many o f which have competing goals. On one hand, muiticulturalism contains aspects of systemic racism that are based in the way a nation has historically engaged with diversity; on the other hand, it is a policy designed to promote inclusive equality. These two principles manifest throughout the many rationales that created the policy. Canada's capacity to balance competing interests within the policy has enabled Canadian muiticulturalism to adapt to challenges in a manner that not all other multiculturalisms have been able to emulate. Among other contemporary challenges, the charge has been laid against muiticulturalism that it fosters the spread of excessively patriarchal cultures in liberal national spaces, and subsequently should be abandoned in favour of more assimilationist models that protect against gender abuse, and abuse of liberal principles of individual human rights. B y carefully analyzing the foundational philosophies in contemporary Canadian muiticulturalism, the thesis shows that in the Canadian case this charge is based on a number o f inaccurate assumptions, which, once corrected, indicate that state-sponsored forms of muiticulturalism may actually promote gender equality, as well as open increased avenues for advanced levels of cultural human rights. The thesis proposes a framework for advancing human rights through a fresh look at the individual rights versus group rights debate, and demonstrates how Canada is uniquely poised, through muiticulturalism, to establish advanced access to equality and freedom of cultural practice for a diverse population. Table of Contents Abstract i i Table o f Contents i i i List o f Tables v i Acknowledgements vii Dedication viii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Thesis: The Beginning of the End of Muiticulturalism? 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Beginning of the End of Muiticulturalism 2 1.3 Methodology 11 1.4 Limitations of the Research 14 1.5 Reviewing the Terminology 17 1.5.1 Muiticulturalism 18 1.5.2 Dominant Majorities/Visible Minorities 20 1.6 Synopsis o f the Thesis Chapters 26 1.7 Conclusion 33 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature: Support, Criticism and Challenges for Contemporary Muiticulturalism 37 2.1 Review of the Literature 37 2.2 Challenges to State-Sponsored Muiticulturalism as a Social Philosophy... 3 8 2.2.1 "Muiticulturalism Enables Ethnic Segregation" 39 2.2.2 "Muiticulturalism Supports the Spread o f Racist Capitalism" 39 2.2.3 "Muiticulturalism Forces People to Identify as Ethnic" 41 2.2.4 "Muiticulturalism is Bad for Women" 43 2.3 In Support of Canadian Muiticulturalism 44 2.4 Surveying Views on Muiticulturalism in the Metropolis Project 46 2.4.1 Building Inclusive Cities 47 2.4.2 Media Depictions and Public Perceptions 53 2.4.3 Failing in Employment Equity 57 iv 2.4.4. General Summary 58 2.5 State-Sponsored Muiticulturalism in Other Western Nations 59 2.5.1 Australia 59 2.5.2 Britain 63 2.5.3 The Netherlands 66 2.5.4 Sweden 72 2.6 Comparative Evolutions 77 2.7 A Separate Peace? Integration versus Segregation in Policy 78 Chapter 3: From Demographic Diversity to Early Muiticulturalism: Race, Gender and International Politics in Immigration Debates 92 3.1 A Case Study of Asian Migration to British Columbia 93 3.2 Managing the "Sojourner Population" 94 3.3 The Chinese in Early Canada 97 3.4 Gender, Class and the L a w in Chinese Migration 100 3.5 Canada and the Commonwealth: Mediating Migration from India 102 3.6 Japanese Migration: From Allies to Enemies .105 3.7 Exploring Canada's Post-War Options 110 3.8 Mapping the Path from Assimilation to Pluralism 117 3.9 Culture Counting 120 3.10 A Brief Legislative History of Canadian Muiticulturalism 124 Chapter 4: Muiticulturalism in the Making: The Place of Policy Rationales in Determining Social Results 133 4.1 The Contentious Politics of Becoming One Among Many 138 4.1.1 Muiticulturalism versus Nationalist Francophone Interests 139 4.1.2 Muiticulturalism and Aboriginal Peoples 141 4.1.3 Rationalizing Muiticulturalism as a Control Mechanism 146 4.2 Rationalizing Reversible Muiticulturalism 147 4.3 Muiticulturalism as a Preserver/Creator of National Identity 153 4.4 Muiticulturalism as a Global Social Blueprint 161 4.5 Muiticulturalism as Diversity Management and Border Control 165 4.6 Marketing Muiticulturalism, Muiticulturalism as Marketing 171 V 4.7 Muiticulturalism as Anti-Racism and Equal Rights 180 4.8 Reviewing the Arguments: A n International Policy Comparison 185 4.9 Anti-Racism and the Evolution of Stable Muiticulturalism 193 Chapter 5: "Muiticulturalism versus Gender Equality": Challenging Assumptions, Essentialism and False Dichotomies 203 5.1 Blaming Muiticulturalism: Popular Policy Misconceptions 206 5.2 Gender and Group Rights 214 5.3 Determining Where the Real Conflict Lies 219 5.3.1 The Limits of Muiticulturalism's Legal Authority 220 5.3.2 Muiticulturalism versus Freedom of Religion 223 5.3.3 Freedom of Religion versus Gender Equality 224 5.3.4 Muiticulturalism and Legal Consent 228 5.3.5 Equal Treatment versus Equal Protection under the L a w 231 5.4 Muiticulturalism and Daily Life: Culture outside the Limits of L a w 232 5.5 In Conclusion 237 Chapter 6: Human Rights, Group Rights... Multicultural Rights? Furthering Advanced Equality in Canadian Policy 242 6.1 Legal Limits on Muiticulturalism and Freedom of Cultural Practice 243 6.2 The Problem of "Culture" in Society and L a w 247 6.3 Rights for Individuals; Cultures for Groups? 250 6.4 A Proposal for Multicultural Rights 253 6.4.1 Defining the Foundational Philosophy of Multicultural Rights... .255 6.4.2 The Limits of Multicultural Rights 256 6.5 The Need for Multicultural Rights 258 6.6 When Multicultural Rights Apply 264 6.7 Pioneering Multicultural Rights in Canada 272 6.8 Recommendations for the Canadian Muiticulturalism Act 275 Chapter 7: Conclusion 284 Bibliography 292 Appendix 1: Ethical Approval 309 Lis t of Tables 1.1 Factors in Muiticulturalism Policy VII Acknowledgements Firstly, my deep thanks to Dr. Mandakranta Bose, without whom I would likely never have undertaken my doctoral degree. I would like to acknowledge the support of the people at the Centre for Women's and Gender Studies, most particularly Dr. Gillian Creese and Dr. Geraldine Pratt for their constructive feedback on the thesis during committee review. I would also like to express my appreciation to the examining panel members, Dr. Sneja Gunew, Dr. James Frideres and Dr. David Ley, whose comments helped the work mature to its final stage. Most of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Daniel Hiebert, who embodies the very best in academic mentorship - a top caliber role model who is personable to the last, and deeply insightful. I consider myself extremely fortunate to be counted among his graduate students. When Dr. Hiebert agreed to be my supervisor, he impressed upon me the need to use such an opportunity to benefit others - that a doctoral degree was not done for one's personal interests, but was a duty undertaken to society as a whole. Upon completion of this degree, I aspire to fulfill that promise. If I can offer a fraction o f the contributions Dr. Hiebert has given to Canada and the world, I wil l consider myself highly successful. In a personal context, my deep gratitude goes out to my family for their support. In particular, I want to express my love and appreciation to my grandfather, Mark Scott, who checked up on me weekly for several years to see how the work was progressing, and to Rowan, whose support has been beyond what words can express. For Rowan and for Tara, Without whom the work would surely have never been completed All my love Chapter 1: Introduction 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e T h e s i s : T h e B e g i n n i n g o f t h e E n d o f M u i t i c u l t u r a l i s m ? 1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Given contemporary challenges to muiticulturalism in many Western nations, the following questions are raised: why is state-sponsored muiticulturalism faltering in Europe and being scaled back in Australia in favour of a more assimilationist model, when the policy has continued to expand in Canada? Given this, what is it about Canadian muiticulturalism that has led it to survive the cutbacks seen in other nations? And, what can Canada do to resolve the significant challenges muiticulturalism faces in promoting the crucial but sometimes competing priorities of gender equality, integration and rights to cultural practice? Much of the recent retreat away from muiticulturalism can be traced to anxieties that the value systems of historically dominant groups - those that have predominantly formed the legal and social systems o f the nations in question - are being eroded by contrary value systems imported under the auspices of cultural freedoms. In many instances, these anxieties have produced racist backlash couched in the language of heritage preservation. Because of the way the debate has developed, cultural freedoms for "ethnic" groups are positioned as the antithesis of other human rights, such as gender equality and protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This dichotomy has positioned muiticulturalism as a policy incompatible with "traditional" Western value systems, leading Australia, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands to second-guess and scale back their policies. But what of Canadian muiticulturalism, and its ongoing, strongly supported place in the national vision? As this thesis will demonstrate, there is no such thing as a single multicultural policy, even among state-sponsored versions of the concept, and that it is these crucial differences in policy choices that have led some nations to abandon official muiticulturalism. Unlike the concluding rhetoric o f many popular debates, it is not some fatal flaw in muiticulturalism policy that makes it incompatible with gender equality which has caused nations to walk away from state-sponsored muiticulturalism; it is instead a complex series of policy choices that have led some nations to develop failed Chapter 1: Introduction 2 multiculturalisms, while Canada retains a functional (albeit imperfect) policy of diversity integration. A s the thesis intends to show, multiculturalism and gender equality are not mutually exclusive; indeed, under the right circumstances, they may in fact be mutually reinforcing. However, it is these "gender versus culture" debates that must be combated i f multiculturalism in Canada is to resist the public and political debates on the essentialized stereotype of patriarchally oppressive cultures that have assisted in the collapse of multiculturalism policies in other Western nations. The thesis can be loosely divided into three sections: introduction and literature review, which comprise chapters one and two; the historical development of Canadian multiculturalism, beginning with early Canadian diversity in chapter three, and expanding in chapter four to look at the foundational philosophies of Canadian multiculturalism in comparison with those of other nations; and future challenges to multiculturalism in chapters five and six, which look respectively at gender and multiculturalism, and multicultural rights to freedom of cultural practice. 1.2 T h e B e g i n n i n g o f t h e E n d o f M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m ? As the stability and security o f many o f the world's nations have worsened over the past five years, particularly in Muslim and multi-ethnic Western states, significant pressure has been placed on the ways in which these nations approach cultural, religious and demographic diversity. Hairline fractures in civil society have cracked wide to reveal racism, hatred and fear - conditions that both arise from and foster outbreaks of extreme violence. "Terror" attacks on civilian targets in Britain and Spain have created widespread anxieties that Western nations are no longer safe now that traditional battlefield warfare has given way to guerilla tactics that defy borders. The American-led invasion of Iraq against the will o f the United Nations has not only increased "terror" threats throughout the world, 1 but has also exacerbated long held frictions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Neither the U N involvement in Afghanistan, nor the extreme violence that has broken out across much of the Middle East, shows any signs of abating. Throughout all this, daily interactions between individuals of different ethnic and religious groups grow increasingly challenging, as people attempt to distance the individual of a different ethnicity on the bus next to them Chapter 1: Introduction 3 from the negative media images, racial fears and stereotypes that thrive in today's geopolitical climate. It is in this unstable atmosphere of heightened ethno-racial anxiety that the place of muiticulturalism in Western societies has become increasingly contested. Due to irnmigration and asylum programs, in combination with pre-existent historical diversity, there are effectively no Western nations (and very few nations in the world) remaining that cannot be said to be in some way multicultural. 2 But the scope of meaning in this term ranges from small scale demographic diversity in some of Europe's less populous nations to Canada's constitutionally empowered official muiticulturalism. Currently, approaches to diversity in Western nations can be divided loosely into two categories: those with official multicultural policies, and those without - this second group representing the majority. In both categories, recent global politics have put pressure on countries already facing economic and demographic diversity challenges - the result being a widespread move in most Western nations away from muiticulturalism and diversity and, as Christian Joppke and Eva Morawska term it, towards assimilation.3 This movement varies considerably, from soft scale encouragement of limited cultural adoption to promote unity, to large-scale redirections of multicultural policy in favour of laissez faire or cultural assimilation models. 4 There can be no doubt that state-sponsored muiticulturalism worldwide is coming under fire. This trend has been identified by numerous scholars, many of whom produce highly similar lists of current events/scholarly contributions as evidence.5 In Britain, left leaning academics and right leaning government officials are in agreement that the policy needs to undergo serious revision, i f not be replaced altogether. Trevor Phillips, Britain's head of the newly established Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, has concluded that muiticulturalism is serving to divide rather than unite communities, creating an environment of isolation and cultural ghettoization capable of fostering violence and even terrorism. 6 While a supporter of muiticulturalism in general, Steven Vertovec has recently criticized Britain's multicultural policy for being il l equipped to address the conditions of what he has termed "super-diversity" that increased migration is bringing to the country. 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 4 In the Netherlands, a multicultural policy rapidly implemented in the early 1980s was scaled back in just over a decade, and has now become, as Han Entzinger describes, "an integration policy that in practice demands much more effort from the migrants than from the receiving population." 8 This swift adoption and rejection of multiculturalism in the Netherlands was followed in the 1990s by an even more rapidly implemented and abandoned program of naturalization for ethnic minorities to hold dual citizenship. These experimental programs, as well as recent outbreaks of violence around Muslim culture in the Netherlands (including the highly publicized murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh), has led to ethno-cultural social unrest - an instability that many Dutch claim can only be solved with an assimilation approach based on the adoption of Dutch values. Sweden, which began with an advanced form of multiculturalism, has been overwhelmed with asylum seekers, and has watched its policy collapse into interracial violence, unequal housing and access to police protection, and ineffective administrative boards that have been unsuccessful at combating the increase of racism and interracial violence. 9 In Australia, the Howard government has been progressively reducing the scope of multiculturalism, and directing what authority still resides in the policy towards promoting business advantages rather than advanced equality or social integration. 1 0 In Canada, Nei l Bissoondath has critiqued multiculturalism as a racialized system that forces non-white ethnic minorities to play up their ethnicity. 1 1 Similarly, Himani Bannerji has claimed multiculturalism is no more than an attempt by a dominant white majority to retain authority by throwing a bone to ethnic minorities in place of genuine social justice. 1 2 Christian Joppke and Eva Morawska claim that every nation currently employing some version of multicultural policy is currently withdrawing it in favour of increased assimilation 1 3 - a word that two decades ago was considered extremely negative in many circles, almost akin to admitting a desire to enforce racism. There have even been scholarly attempts to recast the meaning of assimilation in a more positive, progressive way, such as the work of Rogers Brubaker. 1 4 Critiques o f multiculturalism are nothing new; they have existed, and existed in force, since the idea of state-sponsored multiculturalism first began to circulate. There have always been those on both the political right and left, those in power and those outside Chapter 1: Introduction 5 power, who have opposed the implementation of muiticulturalism for various reasons. What is different about these critiques from the right and left is that for the first time, much of their rationale for doing away with muiticulturalism appears to be for the same reason -the belief that muiticulturalism is responsible for the creation of cultural isolation and the prevention of social cohesion, which place all members of the nation at risk. United by a common logic, these critiques of muiticulturalism are being heard, and more to the point, governments are acting upon them relatively rapidly, yielding to a combination of voter pressure and party politics. Two key questions come to mind given the situation: firstly, is muiticulturalism really to blame for the problems of social isolation it is being credited with; and secondly, will such a rapid retreat from the policy solve the problem? Prior to responding to these questions, it is crucial to observe that while Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia have (or have had) widely recognized, state-sponsored multicultural policies, there is no single "muiticulturalism" to speak of. Substantial differences exist between these national policies in terms of their intents, scopes, histories of implementation, repercussions, and political usages. Canada and Australia have policies that are addressed to all members of the nation, whereas European policies refer only to non-European "ethnic" minorities, and in the Dutch case, only to groups with colonial or historical ties to the country. In Britain and the Netherlands, histories of colonialism continue to impact both the immigrants who have claims to citizenship, and the manner in which they are received. In Sweden and the Netherlands, relatively recent high numbers o f asylum seekers have heavily impacted the structure and direction of their policies. 1 5 Canada, the first country to implement the policy officially, remains the only Western nation in the world to enact muiticulturalism at a constitutional level. Canada pioneered muiticulturalism at a time when it was considered by many to be "preposterous" to establish the "goal of multicultural coexistence around a unifying vis ion" 1 6 , and it has since gone farther in its commitment to the policy than any other nation. However, it should be noted that this does not automatically mean that Canada has been the most committed to ethno-racial equality overall. Britain has introduced aggressive anti-racism measures that are separate policies from its version of muiticulturalism; in Chapter 1: Introduction 6 Canada, anti-racism is a core part o f multicultural policy, and a key contributor to its success in promoting integration. Given the significant variations between policies, it is dangerous to generalize about any inherent flaws in multiculturalism's capacity to generate social cohesion. Nevertheless, something is clearly problematic - not only are the European nations and Australia moving away from multiculturalism, but also the problems of social cohesion remain unsolved. The Netherlands, chronologically leading the move away from multiculturalism, can hardly claim that social integration and inter-ethnic relations have improved since the changes to their policy in the 1990s. Similarly, Britain and Australia, despite reductions in their policies, have seen increased levels of inter-ethnic violence, marked in particular by the race riots of late 2005 in Australia and the July 2005 London bombings. In both these cases, questions in popular media discourses predominated about why "British" and "Australians" were committing violent acts, and why these individuals had not integrated into society. Despite the global trend, Canada seems to be firmly committed to multiculturalism. In both Canadian and comparative research, Daniel Hiebert finds that Canadians have ongoing support for the policy, and that (unlike other Western nations) the government has not adopted a strategy of scaling back either multiculturalism or immigration. A recent survey of dozens of papers from the Metropolis Project on immigration and integration reveals that an overwhelming majority of scholars participating in the project feel the policy is imperfect but immensely valuable, and should be improved rather than abandoned. 1 8 Given that Canada appears to be standing behind its version of the policy, while acknowledging that it remains an imperfect model, it seems illogical to assume that all versions of state-sponsored multiculturalism are fatally flawed, or that multiculturalism is conceptually incapable of creating (or at least assisting in the creation of) social cohesion. Clearly there are other factors at play in these national situations of unrest beyond the establishment of official multicultural policies. Admittedly, the acceptance of complicating Chapter 1: Introduction 7 factors does not tell us whether multiculturalism is helping or harming these uneasy social engagements. Nevertheless, without understanding and addressing them, it seems unlikely that the rapid retreat away from multiculturalism in these nations wil l yield an easy solution to the problems of social isolation, ghettoization and violence that currently exist. As with many issues of policy, national context is critical to understanding differences in the design, implementation and results o f multicultural models. Fundamentally, this thesis focuses on the philosophical foundations that guide different multiculturalisms, in the hopes of understanding how the potential of the various policies have been shaped, limited and directed in different contexts. While state-sponsored multiculturalism has always faced opposition, the current trend marks the most substantial abandonment of the concept since its contested implementation in various Western nations in the 1970s and 80s. This coincides with two critical events, the widespread shift towards the political right throughout much o f the Western world over the past fifteen years, not only in terms of voter trends, but also in the political positions of leading parties (with many central parties shifting right in key issues of international affairs, immigration and diversity); and more recently, the start of major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both o f which involve Western nations invading and/or militarily engaging Muslim nations. The fallout from this, aside from the more obvious and devastating results of war, has been a dramatic increase in anti-Muslim sentiment throughout the Western world, matched by a corresponding increase in anti-Western sentiment throughout the Musl im world. In places where these two worlds overlap -namely in multicultural spaces in Western nations - individuals, and particularly women in hijab, have faced increasing discrimination in the media, harassment in daily life and, in extreme cases, racial violence. Canadian scholar David Ley, supported by a substantial body of work by other academics, argues that the Canadian model of multiculturalism helps more than it hinders efforts to facilitate social cohesion and conflict resolution. 1 9 Examining the retreat from multiculturalism underway in other countries, particularly in Britain, Ley contends that the situation is being interpreted in ways that are politically motivated at the expense o f Chapter 1: Introduction 8 genuine examinations of underlying factors. In response to the increasing criticism of muiticulturalism in contemporary Western societies, Ley identifies and refutes various assumptions that he feels unfairly blame muiticulturalism for a variety of other social problems. Specifically, he cites the current European tendency to equate muiticulturalism with divisive social environments, cultural and geographic ghettoization, and a location from which individuals may defend their culture with vehemence, violence and, in extreme cases, terrorism. Ley argues that the reading of muiticulturalism as a mechanism for enabling harmful isolation is a tactic used to hide other more harmful but harder to target relationships, such as the link between terrorism and ongoing social discrimination, racialized foreign policy and neo-liberal, pro-white agendas. Muiticulturalism, in Ley's view, has become a soft, easy target of blame - one attacked in place of examining deeper, more difficult racialized social and economic relations. He argues that not only is there no clear evidence that muiticulturalism fosters the type of social isolation that breeds terrorism, but also that muiticulturalism is one of the best philosophies to combat this environment, particularly i f pursued with the level of commitment that Canada has demonstrated in the past thirty years. Ley 's critique identifies two key issues related to the attacks muiticulturalism policy is facing: firstly, that other factors are in play in creating harmful situations of social isolation - factors that are more politically inconvenient to abandon than muiticulturalism; and secondly, that Canadian muiticulturalism is proof that the philosophy can work. But where does this fit with the contentions of muiticulturalism critics in Britain, such as the widely respected Trevor Phillips, who stick by the notion that muiticulturalism is incongruous with genuine social integration and anti-racism efforts? In truth, there is actually not nearly that much conflict between these two positions, although it may not appear so initially. What Ley and Phillips' arguments come down to is the idea that European models of muiticulturalism - policies that are currently slated for abandonment - are poor imitations of the potential good muiticulturalism can foster. David Ley is correct in his claim that it is more politically convenient to abandon muiticulturalism than face concerns Chapter 1: Introduction 9 such as a history of colonialism and contemporary systemic racism, just as he is right that muiticulturalism can work well; but this position supports rather than conflicts with Phillips' position that muiticulturalism in its current manifestation in Britain (as a policy separated from anti-racism initiatives and failing to provide concrete progress on positive integration) is a bad thing that should be done away with. Clearly the current system in Britain is not working. However, while agreement can be reached between these two positions on the current state of muiticulturalism in Britain, where Ley and Phillips differ is in their recommendations for the future direction of multicultural policy. Standing in similar positions of critique of the current system, Ley promotes a reformation of muiticulturalism, guided by an unabashed look at underlying complicating factors such as racism and foreign policy, whereas Phillips contends that this examination should happen through venues without state-sponsored muiticulturalism in play. It is o f no small significance that David Ley and Trevor Phillips find themselves taking different approaches to the future of muiticulturalism, especially given that they began in opposite places. In the 1980s, Ley was a strong critic of the way Canadian muiticulturalism was being handled, 2 0 while Phillips was a strong supporter of British muiticulturalism. So why the dramatic reversal o f opinions? In short, Canadian policy has shifted over the years from what Kobayashi has referred to as "red boots" or song and dance muiticulturalism, through a constitutional expansion of rights, to the contemporary commitment to muiticulturalism as anti-racism and national belonging for everyone. In Britain, the policy has stagnated, failing to provide an expansion of either rights or inclusion, while anti-racism policies have been developed through other avenues. As Floya Anthias and Cathy Lloyd point out, muiticulturalism in Britain is all about the celebration of cultural differences, whereas recognition of systemic inequalities is viewed as part of the anti-racism struggle - the two fields remain widely divided in both practice and theory. 2 1 The shifting position of these two scholars reveals a great deal about the differences between the evolution of Canadian and British multiculturalisms. Phillips began by supporting a policy that showed promise, but over the years has failed to deliver results, creating disillusionment and criticism. Ley began with doubts about a policy that Chapter 1: Introduction 10 emphasized celebration over concrete mechanisms of inclusion, and as changes have been made towards a stronger, rights-based multiculturalism, Ley has been convinced that what is currently in place is worth retaining. Having witnessed proof that better policy choices can yield positive improvements, it is no wonder Ley remains convinced that it is not the concept of multiculturalism in Britain and Europe that should be abandoned, but the poor policy choices that have led it in the direction of the celebration model Canada has since replaced with constitutionally-backed, rights-based multiculturalism. 2 2 In the gaps between Phillips and Ley's positions, a little explored 2 3 truth about multiculturalism reveals itself: not only are there multiple multiculturalisms in the world to contend with, but also within each multicultural policy reside numerous agendas, rationales, potentials and results, many of which conflict internally. The problems Ley identifies (systemic racism, pro-white political agendas, discriminatory approaches to "foreign" policy and "foreign" people) exist (largely unrecognized) in society, and because multiculturalism is a creation of the same society, they exist within the policy itself. The elimination of multicultural policy will therefore not eradicate these other concerns, as they arise from the same source rather than multiculturalism being the source; however, multiculturalism is therefore no guarantee against these problems either. Scholars like Nei l Bissoondath, Himani Bannerji and Ghassan Hage generally consider multiculturalism to be the creation of Anglo-dominant governments working from (and intent on upholding) their own value systems - value systems that are highly racialized, though not often openly acknowledged as such. 2 4 Alternatively, scholars such as Ley, Audrey Kobayashi and Leonie Sandercock approach multiculturalism as a policy that is being continuously developed to promote equality and address injustice. 2 5 Because of the complexities of state-sponsored multiculturalism, these seemingly opposite positions are in fact reconcilable. Multiculturalism has emerged from an historical system of deeply racist values that are problematically acknowledged in contemporary times. The policy contains embedded aspects of this system, just as a plant that grows in poisoned soil wil l transfer that poison into its leaves and fruit. When considered in this way, multiculturalism indeed appears to have a fatal flaw. However, the situation is more complex, because Canadian Chapter 1: Introduction 11 muiticulturalism as a policy has been used to combat racism in the system - in effect, muiticulturalism contains the fundamental potential to battle itself, pitting the embedded racialized value systems against muiticulturalism's goal of inclusion and equality. The policy is a product of a society that contains systemic racism, and therefore it contains aspects o f systemic racism, but it is also a conscious effort, guided by its foundational philosophy, to promote integration that is not overtly assimilationist, and (in some cases) enhanced human rights, both of which combat racism i f done well. This is one of the reasons why muiticulturalism appears endlessly politically flexible. The policy doesn't change masks before different public audiences; it literally contains fully formed oppositional elements struggling continuously over the outcome. As demonstrated by the vastly different results of state-sponsored muiticulturalism in the Netherlands and Canada, the outcomes of these internal struggles have ramifications not only for the social integration of national populations, but also for the future of the policies themselves. More work must be done to uncover which political means lead to which social ends. While there has been a significant amount o f focus in recent literature around the dissolution, weakening and abandonment of state-sponsored muiticulturalism in Europe and Australia, what is not being given enough attention is the idea that competing agendas embedded in the policies themselves can yield more than just failure. If tipped the opposite way, these agendas have the potential to produce highly advanced equality. Sadly, the ability to see this potential is compromised by attributing failures exclusively to the policy that rightly belong, as David Ley argues 2 6, to society more broadly. It is this examination of muiticulturalism's potential that this thesis undertakes to contribute to general scholarship. 1.3 M e t h o d o l o g y This thesis is primarily a policy review of Canadian muiticulturalism, informed by a literature review of multicultural scholarship. It focuses on discourses from nations with state-sponsored multicultural policies, rather than on discourses about demographic or laissez faire multicultural integration in nations such as the United States. While references to Canadian laws are used, this thesis is not a legal review, nor does it claim to occupy the Chapter 1: Introduction 12 realm of political science. It is a policy review and a political history of multiculturalism, based in the social sciences, and informed by a feminist approach to the topic, which focuses, where appropriate, on the connections between multiculturalism and gender that are often lost in liberal discourses that approach the policy as gender neutral in both its philosophy and its effects. In referring to the thesis as a policy review, it is worth breaking down exactly what is meant by the concept of policy, and how the thesis approaches the complexities of different aspects o f policy. A government policy is not a single idea or regulation; it contains philosophical, practical and functional aspects. More specifically, a policy is created from a philosophical foundation, which serves to guide the direction of the practical framework that supports the policy's ideological commitments (i.e., through government staffing, funding). The practical framework then supports programs through which the foundational philosophies or aims are transmitted to the general public (or to other government branches), yielding functional results. These results are then fed back through the policy's framework, and are checked against the foundational aims to see i f the policy is succeeding, and to help policy makers adjust the policy at whatever level(s) require changes (in the foundational philosophy, framework or implementation stages). The creation of policy can therefore be understood rather like a tennis ball that travels continuously between concept and implementation, crossing over the practical framework of the policy with each transition. In one direction a program is built, and in the opposite direction the program is critiqued, theoretically providing a continual loop of progression. Canadian multiculturalism is an excellent example of how this system works, and of the difficulties that are created when the policy is approached without an understanding of the differences between the various stages. Hypothetically, when the program appears to be failing, isolating the specific aspect (or aspects) that is failing is critical to correcting the problem. For example, multiculturalism has often been charged with being ineffective in promoting social integration between ethno-cultural groups; however, it is a vastly different problem i f the foundational philosophy does not support integration than i f the government Chapter 1: Introduction 13 simply hasn't allocated sufficient resources to implement what is theoretically a strong program. While these three aspects of policy are closely interconnected (philosophy, framework and implementation), they are also individually very rich locations for analysis. A s such, it is important to limit a policy comparison of multiculturalism in different nations to a manageable size. While the interconnected nature of these aspects wil l be referred to throughout the thesis, the main focus of this research is: firstly, to compare the philosophical foundations that guide the various national policies to different ends; and secondly, to demonstrate that not only are gender equality and cultural freedoms compatible in a multicultural framework, but also that increased anti-racism opportunities exist when one can see beyond the concept that gender equality and cultural freedoms are an either/or scenario. A strong foundational philosophy is no guarantee of a successful program, due to the other elements of policy building that are involved, but it is the core of any given multiculturalism's purpose and aspirations. Because the research questions why some multiculturalisms are largely failing in theirs aims and subsequently being abandoned, while Canada's appears to be succeeding in at least some of its aims, it wil l take as it primary object of analysis the different foundational philosophies upon which these multiculturalisms have been built. As the following chapters wil l show, there are ample clues in a comparison of the foundational philosophies to offer answers to the question of why some countries have been so disappointed with their multiculturalisms, while Canada has continued to support and increase its own policy. The data for the research has been collected from three sources, government-issued documents, policies and legal codes which provide a primary resource for investigation into the different multiculturalism policies and their evolution over the years; academic research, debates and interpretations (secondary sources) of the primary source material, including their impact on society and the degree to which they have achieved their aims, or have been constructed in such a way that wrong aims have been set as targets; and finally, interpretive discussions with policy makers and policy workers, both federally and provincially, which has aided in my understanding of the inner workings of governance. Chapter 1: Introduction 14 These interviews assisted in highlighting two key ideas that run throughout the thesis: the degree to which those who work in muiticulturalism through government have become invested in anti-racist muiticulturalism as the way forward; and the frustration felt at the lack of legal teeth and core authority within the policy, limiting the persuasiveness of the policy to that of rhetorical rather than legal devices. These interviews were casual in nature, to inform the researcher of key "behind the scenes" debates that do not always surface in policy documents. The purpose of the research has not been to use these interviews as primary source material, but more as a jumping off point for lines of inquiry within the literature and Canadian legal code. Because of the relatively small world of policy workers in this field, and the interconnected network of government, it was very difficult to persuade people to speak on record about their observations, as it was almost impossible to guarantee anonymity. The few quotes that do appear in the thesis were obtained with much persuasion and long discussions, sometimes for single lines of text, making it virtually impossible to include larger sections of the interviews as part of the body of evidence presented in the research findings. It must also be noted with regards to the secondary literature that a large section of the literature review on Canadian muiticulturalism in chapter two emerges from the Metropolis Working Paper Series. This is due to a project undertaken by the researcher whereby several hundred papers were screened for muiticulturalism content, and several dozen were summarized and compiled into an annotated bibliography. Obviously, such an extensive project provides a more extensive familiarity with this paper series than might be expected, however the summaries provided should be understood to be a source of additional information that reflects several of the key concerns with Canadian muiticulturalism. It has been added to the review o f the literature for interest's sake, rather than to supplant the contemporary research of other authors in the field who are discussed throughout the thesis. Chapter 1: Introduction 15 1.4 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e R e s e a r c h As with any body o f work, parameters have been established in this research that necessitate the deliberate exclusion of certain fields of inquiry. The thesis is limited exclusively to discussions o f muiticulturalism as a state-sponsored policy, foregoing debates on the huge volume of research about muiticulturalism in connection to globalization, neo-liberalism, political science, definitions of ethnicity, cultural production, literature, migration and daily life in the modern era. The dissertation does not engage in extensive review of theories of racial difference, due to the extensive variety of rich literature on this topic already available; instead this thesis provides analysis on the ways in which policy approaches and creates concepts of difference for use in political strategies of social organization. In relationship to the idea of different aspects of policy introduced above, it is necessary to acknowledge up front that this thesis is not an attempt to prove that Canada has been able to actualize the foundational philosophies contained in the policy - a project that would produce an entirely different thesis than the examination of philosophical foundations presented here. This is clearly a significant limitation, for it relies that the words of the policy and the ideas they contain be taken at face value. There are obvious reasons to be cautious with this type of approach, given that it is far easier for governments to make claims and introduce policies than it is to implement and maintain them. However, the main idea behind this is twofold: firstly, there is a limit on the length of the document and the amount of material presented, and substantial room must be left to refute the "gender versus culture" argument that has so easily leant itself to government and lobby groups intent on undermining expanding cultural diversity within the borders of the nation; and secondly, the emphasis on foundational philosophies is guided by the idea that a policy cannot manifest a broad-spectrum result (either for success or failure) that is not in some way contained within the foundational philosophies of the policy. For example, a policy that emphasizes segregation of different groups wil l not easily promote integration, and i f integration does occur it is likely the result of other factors. Similarly, a policy that emphasizes muiticulturalism primarily as a business advantage wil l not yield the staff and Chapter 1: Introduction 16 programs that spontaneously promote anti-racism in daily life as a valued philosophy. The scope of this thesis is to examine how the underlying philosophical foundations of Canadian multiculturalism have emerged, and to examine how they theoretically enable Canadian multiculturalism to retain its place in the nation despite the mounting hostilities to multiculturalism (and the corresponding mounting support for more assimilationist value systems in public spaces) witnessed in other nations such as Australia and the Netherlands. The thesis does not provide a close comparative analysis of Quebec's interculturalism and Canadian multiculturalism. This task is left to scholars with more expertise in the nuances of Francophone culture - such an endeavour deserves to be a thesis in its own right. While Quebec's connection to multiculturalism will be discussed in relation to the early evolution of the policy, the thesis does not aim to repeat the extensive scholarship of Wi l l Kymlicka and others on the relationship between Quebec and Canadian multiculturalism. The question presents itself: how can one speak of Canadian multiculturalism without speaking of Quebec multiculturalism? Yet, it is a mistake to apply geographic boundaries to policy matters. Just because Quebec is physically contained within the nation of Canada does not mean that its interculturalism policy is similarly contained within the concept of "Canadian multiculturalism". Canadian multiculturalism is a distinct policy entity, with its own historical evolution, documentation, legal standing and public application. In this context it may be more correct to consider Canadian Multiculturalism as a proper noun, as the official title for the federal policy, rather than as a geographically encompassing entity. While various provincial policies may draw from the federal policy, they should not be considered to be synonymous with it, particularly in the case of Quebec. Although Quebec signed on to the original policy in 1971, the province's refusal to sign onto the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, and its rejection of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988 in favour of its own interculturalism policy, demonstrate clearly that to speak of Canadian multiculturalism does not in any way automatically infer that the discussion is also about Quebec interculturalism. As this thesis is a comparison of national-level policies in international comparison, not of provincial policies set against national ones, Quebec's interculturalism has not been discussed. However, for those interested in comparisons between Canadian multiculturalism and Chapter 1: Introduction 17 Quebec's interculturalism, please see W i l l Kymlicka's Finding Our Way,27 or Amy Nugent's recent article on the subject in the Journal of Canadian Ethnic Studies29, While this research focuses on comparisons of Canadian muiticulturalism with policies in other nations, it does not pretend to contrast the full package of human and legal rights of all o f these countries, nor does it provide full histories of the development of multicultural policy in each of the nations being discussed. The main focus of the thesis is to explore the reasons for the continued support of Canadian multicultural policy, not to compare which nations offer better overall rights packages. Such a project would necessitate a massive body o f legal work, and would take the thesis far from its close examination of muiticulturalism as a mechanism for promoting equality and integration. The thesis aims to compare the philosophies of different multicultural policies, and furthermore to uncover the competing interests embedded in the various policies that have rendered different results in terms of the direction of muiticulturalism. As a final note on the limitations of the research, it is important to consider the researcher's level of accessibility to policies introduced into legislation, Parliament and law. One o f the great difficulties for me with researching the Netherlands is that much of the available information is in Dutch. Therefore, in the case of the Netherlands more reliance is placed on the secondary interpretation o f policies by academics, compared with policy reviews available in English-speaking nations. Despite this reliance on the secondary literature, there is some direct access to these policies in translation, as they appear cited in the works of scholars, and in some cases through U N sources. 1.5 Reviewing the Terminology Regarding terminology, it must be observed that the language used to describe social situations is rarely randomly selected. Muiticulturalism as a plurality discourse relies on the differentiation of multiple ethnicities and cultural communities. The terminology it utilizes, whether out of practical convenience or historical habit, contains within it certain problematic assumptions - issues that are reflected continuously throughout the Chapter 1: Introduction 18 philosophies that govern the policy. The terminology can be viewed as a microcosm of larger concerns within multiculturalism, such as issues of normativity around who is named, who is able to escape being labeled, who is invisible, who is perceived as visibly different, and who is considered a "cultural" being. 1.5.1 Multiculturalism: To begin, it is necessary to define exactly what is denoted by multiculturalism. As Fleras and Elliot observe, there is a multiplicity of usages connected to the term, leading to diverse sets of meaning, intention and application. 2 9 In Canada, the term denotes a long history of grassroots advocacy, government, social, policy and constitutional change, while in other countries it may indicate no more than a number of ethnic groups (quite literally multi-cultures) living together within the same national borders. Part of understanding Canada's relationship to this concept lies in examining how the term has come to take on additional meaning within the nation, above and beyond its demographic definition. Kobayashi has observed, "The term 'multiculturalism' carries a sense of dynamism and diversity. Any representation of multiculturalism, however, also carries the contradictions inherent in cultural processes in general, and in Canadian culture in particular. There is a contradiction between the 'multicultural' composition of the population and multiculturalism policy." 3 0 As Joppke relates, "There is certainly a widespread de facto multiculturalism in liberal states."31 However, this de facto multiculturalism should not be confused with state-sponsored multicultural policy. The former exists as a physical condition either of immigration (as in the United States) or as a result of borders being established around pre-existent multiple cultural groups (as in India); the latter is a deliberate decision on behalf of the state to engage the present diversity in policy, which then directly informs government actions, integration strategies, federal spending, etc. Although it can be easy to refer to all Western nations as having some form of de facto multiculturalism, there is a significant gap between the presence of diversity in any given country and a government's official recognition of this diversity through multicultural policy. Chapter 1: Introduction 19 In today's society, muiticulturalism manifests very differently at the nationwide level of state-sponsored policy than it does at a community level celebration of Vasaiki or Cinqo de Mayo. Unhindered by long-term, far-reaching bureaucratic realities of legality, budget, governance etc., community level muiticulturalism is perhaps the best example o f inclusive, active, successful muiticulturalism available, as measured against the multicultural ideal of a pluralistic society in which all cultures and ethnicities are equally valued and empowered. However, many of Canada's community and local level manifestations of muiticulturalism are enabled by larger state-defined principles of equality and inclusion, formulated and funded during and since the Trudeau era. It is the development of this state-governed level of muiticulturalism that this thesis addresses, for it is this state-sponsored muiticulturalism that engages directly in a structural way with the development of the nation in relation to globalization and trans-border migration. Even within this body of policy, there are significant multiplicities - a natural result o f the many separate voices that have collaborated to produce them. But despite this multiplicity, it is possible to locate several base foundations upon which the finer details are constructed, and thus it is possible to consider state-sponsored muiticulturalism in Canada and elsewhere as a specific entity individual to each national context. Unless otherwise stated, when muiticulturalism is referred to in this thesis, the intended meaning is state-sponsored official muiticulturalism policy, which usually refers only to the multiculturalisms of Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Diversity in Canada in the pre-1971 period wil l be referred to as pre-multiculturalism, which indicates the period prior to the establishment o f an official Canadian muiticulturalism policy, as opposed to the false assumption that there has ever been a time in Canada's history as a nation that has ever been non-multicultural. It is also useful to observe that Quebec has its own state-sponsored diversity policy, referred to as interculturalism. This was put in place as an alternative to Canadian muiticulturalism, and is fundamentally based on the acceptance of French language as a central unifying principle. 3 2 While some examples of cultural practice throughout the thesis Chapter 1: Introduction 20 are drawn from Quebec, particularly in chapter six (which provides current events analysis), the term multiculturalism is intended to refer to the Canada-wide policy rather than Quebec's interculturalism. As a final note on the use of the term multiculturalism, it must be pointed out that this concept has a long and uneasy relationship with Aboriginal Peoples. Exclusively a concern of Canadian and Australian multicultural policies (for obvious reasons), the inclusion or exclusion of Native Peoples from the policy continues to be an unresolved issue. Aboriginal Peoples have all too often found themselves forcibly included in a policy that is primarily constructed as a discourse on immigration - one that equates their claims to centrality in the nation with those who are, for all intents and purposes, newcomers. A further discussion of the conflicts between Aboriginal concerns and multiculturalism is provided in chapter four, which investigates the rationales and governing strategies that have influenced the policy's development in Canada. 1.5.2 Dominant Majorities/ Visible Minorities: The effort to accurately and adequately describe difference has been a long struggle in academia and in society more broadly. Nevertheless, terminology around difference remains a contested site. In Britain, non-white ethnic groups are problematically lumped into one of two categories: Black or Indian/South Asian. The term used to describe difference in the Netherlands and Canada is ethnic minorities - sometimes interchangeable in Canada with the term visible minorities - both of which often raise eyebrows in some international and academic circles. Wsevolod Isajiw, a scholar highly referenced by other academics in the field of diversity studies, has rejected the term visible minorities altogether as an intensely racialized, highly problematic term. 3 3 Similarly, Canada's use of the term people of colour (largely put forward by feminist and anti-racist activists) causes backlash in Europe, and is considered by some British race theorists to be almost akin to calling someone a coloured person. Australia has similar terms in use, with the addition of the term "Third World-looking" migrant proposed by Australian multiculturalism theorist Ghassan Hage. 3 4 Work by Sneja Gunew, also in the Australian context, identifies the slides Chapter 1: Introduction 21 made between Australian and European in national discourses, blurring the lines between ethnicities within the dominant group, while still retaining firm boundaries against those conceptualized as "outsiders". 3 5 Feminist academic Uma Narayan critiques the shifting boundaries of terms such as Western and non-Western in general use. 3 6 It seems there is little satisfaction with the terminology available to describe differences in ways that do not actively reinscribe problematic racialization and power dynamics. As Krishna Pendakur (2005) and others have noted, the term minority for use in Canadian diversity discourses is problematic on several fronts. Presumably put into use in order to describe the numerical representation of a population (minority as opposed to majority percentages), or to indicate a lack of power, the term brings with it certain implications of value judgment. Minority can just as easily be used to describe that which is less important, less powerful or less central. This notion is further compounded by multicultural discourse's tendency to label the minority as opposed to the majority; the minority is highlighted as that which is different, that which does not belong in the majority or the mainstream. In addition to problems of value judgment, the phrase minority even in its mathematical usage may not be accurate in Canada for much longer. As Daniel Hiebert (2005) demonstrated with his 2017 population projections, major urban centres such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are experiencing an ever-increasing movement towards diversity that may soon render terms such as minority and majority ineffective descriptors. In addition to this challenge, immigration numbers could potentially present ideological ruptures between rural and urban environments in Canada, where population realities result in different perceptions of what constitutes a racial minority. The term ethnic also presents significant concerns, particularly in a nation supposedly based on muiticulturalism. Theoretically, in a true multicultural state, all ethnicities are held equally, and subsequently there is need to differentiate some as ethnic, and some as an amorphous unlabelled group (read: white). The difficulty with this term is not the notion that groups retain an ethnicity in a multicultural state, but that in Canada the Chapter 1: Introduction 22 term ethnic has come to be closely associated with skin colour and other markers of difference that delineate the white mainstream from the diversity of the nation. There is a tendency to focus on the other as ethnic and the dominant group as somehow non-ethnic, or of an ethnicity that does not need to be spoken. The continued use of the term ethnic to describe those who appear visibly different from an Anglo-European norm is disturbing, to say the least. When combined together, the phrase ethnic minority is doubly charged with value discriminators. Unfortunately, short of attempting to coin a new phrase, as Ghassan Hage did with "Third World-looking" migrant (1998, 62), these terminologies remain a problematic yet necessary means of communicating ideas at the present time. Even Hage's term, while it captures the emphasis on stereotyping in racial naming, does not permit more nuanced versions of this naming, such as discrimination towards the Ukrainian community - a European group that currently enjoys white privilege, but has nevertheless endured significant exclusion historically as an Eastern European group, and has been a primary target of multiculturalism in Canada. Hage's term may be localized to Australian use, but even then the concept of "Third World-looking" migrant has problematic class connotations; money can easily erase the perception that one is a "migrant", but that does not address issues of ethnic naming; similarly, other factors such as education, accent, profession, etc. all disrupt the equation Hage seems to want to infer on behalf of the dominant majority 3 7 between skin colour and broader socio-economic, geo-political conceptions of "Third World" and migrancy. Hage's emphasis on the process of stereotyping does point in a useful direction, even i f the term he has arrived at remains problematic. What is important is that some individuals have certain elevated levels of ethnicity attributed to them, namely on the basis of race and visible markers of difference, which the historically dominant white European/Canadian/Australian group does not automatically associate with itself. This process of naming ethnicity is complexly mediated by culture (i.e., education, accent, profession - in essence, fluency in the mainstream). Some level of descriptor is necessary in order to forward any level communication about these issues, but so far the descriptors Chapter 1: Introduction 23 used focus more on the attribution of concepts of inherent ethnicity or race, rather than on the process by which this ethnicity is identified in elevated ways for some groups/individuals and not others. Considering these dynamics, this thesis proposes the use of the term ethnically framed to refer to those people whose race, ethnicity or cultural background is highlighted as a primary identifier. The use of the term ethnically framed is particularly useful in the context of state-sponsored muiticulturalism because it puts emphasis on the process of identifying difference rather than on the re-inscription of concepts of inherent difference. This is not necessarily the most practical term in all potential applications, such as census statistics, where all individuals wil l fit somewhere into an ethnic category, or multiple categories. Even given the problematic nature of shifting boundaries of ethnicity throughout history, 3 8 a universal census considers all individuals to have at least one ethnicity. However, where muiticulturalism is concerned, ethnicity is all too often approached as a matter of racial and cultural difference from the perspective of the dominant group: ethnicity is associated with hyphenated Canadian identities, such as Indo-Canadian and Chinese Canadian, which problematically convey non-inclusion, or at best an uneasy and partial inclusion, in mainstream society/national identity. 3 9 The term ethnically framed is therefore used not as synonymous with ethnicity, but in cases where the framing of ethnicity is an inherent mechanism or result of a particular policy or social theory. It draws attention to the process of naming, and to the power dynamics that support the process. The term ethnically framed must be understood to have three key restrictions: firstly, it does not replace ethnicity 4 0 as a term in use; secondly, is should be regarded not as an absolute concept but as a holding term for temporary use until such time as equality renders such language unnecessary; and thirdly, it does not blindly imply that the lens of viewing ethnicity as a personal identifier is restricted to the external imposition of this perception by a dominant group towards non-dominant groups. While this is a major aspect of the ways in which multicultural policies are constructed, efforts to recognize this should not undermine the right of individuals to self-identify as "ethnic" based on their own understanding of the term, or assert their right to select a hyphenated identity. 4 1 It can Chapter 1: Introduction 24 happen that communities desire to self-identify, or to self-frame as ethnic groups. However, when ethnic framing occurs in policy, or in the power dynamics created by the dominance of one or more cultural groups over others, there is often little opportunity to elect not to be ethnically framed. Therefore, this term is not synonymous with the concept of individuals being ethnically self-identified; it acknowledges that while some voluntary ethnic framing may or may not occur from within, there is a simultaneous externally imposed dynamic of this framing that is not elective. The use of the term ethnically framed is therefore restricted to applications where policy, history and/or power dynamics dictate that ethnicity is selectively attributed to certain groups as a marker of difference held to be inherent to those groups. In this sense, ethnically framed is an excellent term for use in multiculturalism debates, because of multiculturalism's heavy reliance on identifying, constructing and managing ethnic difference. The term is still problematic, because it refers to framing from the perspective o f the historically dominant group, and as such reinscribes centrality of that group. However, by focusing on the process of creating ethnicity as a category of difference rather than accepting any inherent value in that difference, the artificiality of the distinction "ethnicity" is highlighted. The goal of this term is to draw attention to the ways in which historically dominant groups constructs "the other" - not to sanction such a process, but to place it continuously under a microscope. The term ethnically framed highlights the ways in which policies produce, rely on and replicate ethnicity as a static concept that is used to describe some members of society and not others. In this sense, ethnically framed groups refers to visible minorities, ethnic minorities and people of colour - terms that in current usage rely on attributing either ethnicity or a concept of racialized difference to some people who do not fall within the (shifting)4 2 boundaries of an unspoken white norm. While all of these terms when first introduced were intended to increase sensitivity in place of insensitivity to issues of race and ethnicity, they continue to suffer from critiques because each of these terms is rooted in a concept of inherent racial difference, focusing on appeals to biology (long since debunked, particularly by modern British race theorists) instead of emphasizing the process by which racialization occurs. The term ethnically framed highlights the concept of a lens of vision being selectively applied, and draws attention to the power of the viewer in Chapter 1: Introduction 25 shaping the subject. The term does not imply that individuals do not have ethnicity; instead, it foregrounds the process by which ethnicity is being selectively viewed above and beyond other aspects of self. Because the idea o f ethnic framing disrupts naturalizations of ethnicity and instead inserts a questioning of ethnic labeling as a process, there is more opportunity to conceptualize ethnicity as fluid, hybridizing, and as a labeling strategy employed by some people about other people. Specifically in relation to this thesis, the term ethnically framed demonstrates the mechanisms by which those who have shaped multicultural policy have envisioned the "differences" of others, embedding in the policy a language of power dynamics that must be explored more thoroughly than terms such as visible or ethnic minority will allow. A s a foil to the concept of ethnically framed groups, there must be some means of describing those groups that have, within the boundaries of multicultural policy and debates, largely escaped being named. However, providing ethno-cultural specific names proves as difficult for these groups as it does for "ethnic minorities" or "visible minorities". Discussions of what constitutes "whiteness" have exploded in recent years, led by Ruth Frankberg's excellent work on the subject.4 3 However, the concept of whiteness is not the same as referring to the historically dominant group, for there are instances where the two are not the same, as in the Ukrainian, Hutterite, Doukhabour and Jewish communities' experiences in early Canada. Initially not considered white, those of Ukrainians and Jewish communities have since come to occupy a space that sometimes places them in positions of social dominance, and at other times disempowers them. The boundaries of whiteness have shifted historically over the years, as David Theo Goldberg proves with his analysis on census categories in the United States. 4 4 The term used in this thesis wil l therefore be historically dominant group(s), indicating those who have acted in positions of authority in governance, the economy and daily society, and have exercised the capacity to ethnically frame those who are not considered to fall within the margins of the dominant group. This category is predominantly are made up of European ethno-cultural groups. In Canada and Australia, the dominant group 4 5 has largely been made up of British immigrants, but also includes other European groups, particularly those of Western and Northern Europe. As evidenced by the Ukrainian case, geographic origination from the Chapter 1: Introduction 26 European continent does not automatically translate into inclusion in the dominant group. In the case of Canada, clearly French immigrants have played a significant role in Quebec, Manitoba and parts of the Maritimes, but it is problematic to equate French and English influences in Canada outside Quebec (in the areas governed by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act) because of the degree to which English influence has vastly outweighed French and other European influences. It would be unfair to Francophone Canadians to imply that they have enjoyed levels of authority and political influence equal to Anglo Canadians in other provinces outside Quebec. Therefore, in parts of Canada that recognize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the term historically dominant group(s) refers predominantly, although not exclusively, to British-ancestry individuals, with the inclusion o f other European-ancestry individuals (including those of French descent) who have been accepted into the mainstream. It should also be noted that acceptance into the dominant group has shifted throughout Canada's history - differences between European groups that were earlier regarded as significant have been treated as progressively less divisive with the arrival of Asian, African and South American immigrants to Canada in larger numbers. 1.6 Synopsis of Thesis Chapters State-sponsored multiculturalism is arguably one of the most intriguing developments in Western social organization since the emergence of democratic and communist models around the turn of the last century. But is this endeavour destined to be short-lived? As Britain, Australia, Sweden and the Netherlands back away from multiculturalism, will Canada follow close behind, or is there something distinct about Canadian multiculturalism that will merit its survival into the twenty-first century? Over the course of the following chapters, this thesis wil l explore the history, evolution, and contemporary manifestation of Canadian multiculturalism (specifically focusing on the foundational philosophy of the policy) and wil l compare it to other contemporary policies in hopes of finding the answer to this question. Chapter 1: Introduction 27 The quest to understand the dynamics of this issue begins with a review of the literature in chapter two, which focuses on major arguments for and against state-sponsored muiticulturalism, and a look at the multicultural policies o f Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and Australia. In muiticulturalism scholarship, three distinct foci emerge, with very few scholars occupying theoretical territory that overlaps beyond their sphere of interest. Government policy workers and N G O s predominantly inhabit spaces that are constructed from the framework of multicultural policy (federally, provincially and municipally) and they respond in dialogue with the specifics of a policy-governed approach. In short, they make government-directed actions from the policy. Academics who work on immigration, settlement and cultural diversity make intermittent forays into the world of policy, but respond overwhelmingly to small "m" muiticulturalism, often drawing disturbingly few distinctions between state-sponsored directives and a general globalizing condition of population diversity. This is not to say that academics fail in to influence policy making, but rather that few academics, when reviewing muiticulturalism, pay close attention to the details of the policy mandate, programs or government initiatives. Feminist scholars, concerned with situated knowledges and gender focused research, form a third division, one which early on in its development rarely engaged the details of muiticulturalism policy directly, and circulated predominantly, although by no means exclusively, in separate academic foci than other scholars. However, as multicultural theory has evolved, it is becoming increasingly commonplace for issues of gender to be considered closer to the foregrounds of debates on liberalism and society. Academics focus a great deal of attention on theories of difference, race, ethnicity, nationalism, and gender - all of which are very valuable - but few of which connect directly to the details, direction and priorities of state-sponsored muiticulturalism. Out of these groups, there are even fewer academics who make Canada a specific area of research. Kogila Moodley, Charles Taylor, Audrey Kobayashi and Wi l l Kymlicka are some of the only academics who connect their research directly to a policy-centered analysis and include gender as a category for analysis. This chapter attempts to integrate these three perspectives - feminist social science, social science and policy - demonstrating that when used in complementary ways, a fuller spectrum of knowledge becomes available. Chapter 1: Introduction 28 As indicated in the above discussions, this thesis proposes that multiculturalism be understood both as a complex negotiation between policy philosophy, framework and implementation, and as a negotiation or struggle between embedded rationales drawn from the conflicting forces of systemic racism and the drive for equality - values that are transferred in complex competing ways to the policy. However, prior to any actual discussion of these complexities, it is necessary to provide evidence to support two fundamental assumptions: firstly, that systemic racism existed and continues to exist in Canadian society, and specifically in Canadian government policies; and secondly, that this systemic racism has indeed been transferred to multiculturalism. The third chapter of the thesis focuses on providing evidence for these claims through a case study of Asian immigration to Western Canada, including gender analysis of government policies. While there is significant value in providing case studies to support the concept of systemic racism in all countries with state-sponsored multicultural policies, there simply is no room to do justice to this endeavour. The thesis wil l be forced to rely heavily on the research of prominent scholars working on other Western nations with state-sponsored multiculturalism for proof of systemic racism in these policies. Chapter three contends that early Canadian immigration policies were openly racist in their anti-Asian restrictions, consistent with similar policies in Australia, N e w Zealand and other Western nations. However, while Canada did not have restrictions that were as severe as some (such as the White Australia policy), and although Canada was ahead of many other Western nations in moving away from a race-based immigration system in 1967, it has struggled progressively over the years to reform and remove racialized values that haunt its government policies. Multiculturalism, also a product of the same time period as the move to immigration's points system, has faced similar revisions as Canada seeks to move increasingly towards an equality-based, anti-racist society. However, the racialization embedded in the values of these revisions were often not widely recognized until much later; for example, Canada's anti-racism plan is not even five years old, indicating over thirty years of revisions to both immigration and multiculturalism policies where equality took a few steps forward, and then a few more, and then a few more. Chapter 1: Introduction 29 Chapter three provides a close look at the value systems from which multiculturalism emerged in order to demonstrate not only the magnitude of how far Canadian multiculturalism has traveled, but also the fact that the value systems of a nation do not simply switch over instantaneously (or even through a few decades) with the adoption of new policy. Chapter four provides a closer look at the internal workings of the multicultural policy in Canada, with comparative references to state-sponsored policies in other countries. Chapter four concerns itself with an examination of the competing rationales for multiculturalism, including those that both foster and diminish gender equality. Because of the multiple influences on early multiculturalism, the various incarnations of its priorities and the successive governments that have adapted it politically, the policy serves to promote multiple agendas simultaneously, not all of which are easily compatible. This chapter tracks the evolution of political rationales for the policy (and its subsequent priorities) through the decades, reflecting on which rationales appear to produce more useful, stable forms of multiculturalism for the future. Inherent to this argument is the idea that the embedded value systems of a society reveal themselves through multicultural policy, and that the policy's progress towards anti-racism from a position of ensuring the ongoing authority of the historically dominant group can be used as a sort of litmus test for the evolution of social equality. Returning to the concept that multiculturalism emerges from a society containing systemic racism, chapter four elaborates on the concept of the battle between the policy's hidden racialization and its design to seek out and eliminate that racism not only in itself, but also in society more broadly. Ultimately, multiculturalism's success as a policy in promoting harmonious integration (and rights to cultural retention without compelling people to assimilate to the historically dominant culture) rests on the degree to which the policy has been able to defeat its own embedded systemic racisms, and move on to an advanced form of equality. Nations with multiculturalisms that have failed to achieve this, such as the Netherlands, or nations that have retained a weak multiculturalism and have emphasized anti-racism through other venues, such as Britain, might indeed be better off without their multicultural Chapter 1: Introduction 30 policies. This does not indicate that state-sponsored muiticulturalism is a failed concept, only that a successful policy requires a certain level of commitment in its philosophical foundation that not all nations are prepared to make. Following a discussion of the evolution o f Canadian policy from its origins to contemporary times, it seems logical to examine the distance muiticulturalism still has to go in advancing equality, and to discuss any lingering conflicts preventing the policy from moving forward. To that end, chapter five examines apparent conflicts between the rights to cultural and religious practice extended by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the guarantee of gender equality under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Using legal examples to highlight the importance of a sound philosophical policy commitment to equality and diversity, this chapter questions the nature of the conflict between these supposedly incongruous rights, and proposes a way of resolving the situation. Chapter six, as a compliment to chapter five, examines the complexities of establishing freedom of cultural practice as a basic human right, and presents a framework for advancing cultural rights as part of Canada's constitutional commitment to muiticulturalism. The role of gender in muiticulturalism is paradoxically implicit but invisible, and it represents a significant challenge to the future of the policy in Western nations. Muiticulturalism is fundamentally about promoting equality of cultural practice for all people. However, multicultural policies routinely fail to define exactly what it is they are protecting, due to under-evaluated but silently acknowledged conflicts between cultural practice and pre-existing legal conventions, particularly around issues of gender. The question is how legitimate are these contentions that muiticulturalism is incompatible with gender equality, and to what extent is muiticulturalism providing an easy target of blame for other issues? Any apparent conflicts between gender equality and cultural practice are currently resolved in Canadian muiticulturalism by soft language that denies the policy any meaningful legal authority, and subsequently offers little genuine protection for cultural Chapter 1: Introduction 31 practice, integration to the mainstream, reformation o f the mainstream, or reformation of the law itself. For example, multiculturalism cannot guarantee an individual the right to perpetrate spousal assault based on cultural norms - a violation of both pre-existing legal codes and the fundamental human rights of women. However, in order to prevent the policy from guaranteeing cultural practices such as spousal abuse, multiculturalism is made so weak that it cannot protect cultural practices that are in no way a violation of human rights, such as conventions o f personal attire. Additionally, this reading of culture as incompatible with gender equality silently acts to label practices such as spousal assault as "ethnic" cultural practices, rather than as something that has been, to varying degrees, an acceptable cultural norm of virtually every country at some stage, including Western nations until the mid-twentieth century. Chapter five focuses on defending multiculturalism against the claim that gender and multiculturalism are incompatible, and chapter six examines ways in which cultural rights can be strengthened without negating gender equality. To that end, chapter six proposes a framework for expanding freedom of cultural practice as a basic human right Although Canada has both a constitutional framework for multiculturalism and extensive human rights legislation, there remains significant ambiguity around an individual's rights to cultural practice. This ambiguity is not limited to Canada's Human Rights Act, but originates with the U N Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which fails to list cultural practice along with other protections such as those based on race, gender, religion, and country of origin. Although there exists the U N International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which came into force in 1976, this document has far less sway than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has not been adopted into the language of Canadian law and policy as its predecessor was. In many ways, this statute exists to address omissions in the Declaration, but it remains a distant second cousin, clouded by lack of authority and nationally convenient interpretations of its meaning. Even within the Covenant, cultural rights are not clearly defined, appear as the smallest of the three types o f rights specified, and locate their authority within the signing of the Universal Declaration. Currently, cultural rights are one of the most ambiguous of all UN-guided principles on protections against discrimination, and where they appear at Chapter 1: Introduction 32 all, namely in the Covenant, they are surrounded by unclear language that most frequently asserts the right of individuals to be part of the cultural life of a nation, without any rights not to be part of the cultural life of a nation, or to participate in the nation with a level of protection of cultural differences. In order to be applied in a legal or social context, cultural rights require disproportionate levels of appeal to other aspects of human rights such as religion, gender or race. In some cases, cultural practices conflict with directly certain human rights, such as the right to gender equality, making it very difficult to establish a framework within which cultural rights, human rights and national cultures (including legal protocols) co-exist harmoniously. While Canadians enjoy a significant number o f cultural freedoms, many government practices and laws enforce the dominance of certain cultural groups at the expense of others, and these laws cannot effectively be appealed under current human rights legislation because they do not violate religious freedoms - culture's closest cousin in human rights conventions. Efforts to expand the right to cultural practice in Canada are limited by the complexity of defining culture, and by the Canadian Muiticulturalism Acfs weak language, which "fosters", "promotes" and "encourages" but does not explicitly guarantee or enforce an individual's right to culture. Nevertheless, no other Western nation has gone farther in its attempts to address the gap between cultural rights and national legal/social norms than Canada. The reasons behind the reluctance to establish culture as a basic human right rest primarily on conflicts between cultural practice, existing Canadian law, and the human right of gender equality. However, while conflicts in these areas exist, it does not necessarily follow that they cannot be resolved, or that the current practice o f avoiding any meaningful guarantee of cultural rights is the best means through which to reach a resolution. Using the potential for advanced equality contained (but underutilized) in the Canadian Muiticulturalism Act, chapter six contends that it is possible to establish a framework for the introduction of culture as an explicitly stated, fundamental human right that exists independently of other human rights such as religion or country of origin, without compromising gender equality. Because of the ways in which Canada has laid out the foundational philosophy of its multicultural policy, it is currently perhaps the only nation from which such an expansion of cultural rights can be mounted. The effort to Chapter 1: Introduction 33 introduce a practical method of ensuring cultural practice as a basic human right at a national level is a highly valuable endeavour, and emphasizes the value of a well functioning multicultural policy at a time when so much of the world is in conflict over cultural and religious values. 1.7 Conclusion Despite its many failings, state-sponsored multiculturalism as an ideal is a remarkable conceptualization of what equality might look like - an admirable endeavour in a world that is far more accustomed to actualizing inequality. Excluding small scale, community based realizations of equality sprinkled sporadically throughout history, the nationwide desire to actualize real equality (across gendered, religious, cultural, racialized, sexual, age and ability normative borders) on such a broad scale is a relatively recent ambition in human history. Such a project is bound to encounter significant challenges, and yet, those challenges must not become excuses. I f multiculturalism is to become a lasting and fully viable means of encouraging and ensuring equality in the realm of what Hage has termed "the multicultural real," it must be strengthened to not only provide the equality it promises, but also to resist co-option from political parties intent on utilizing it as a means of consolidating power for a single group. In order to meet these complex demands, it is vital to question the ways in which contemporary manifestations o f multiculturalism are responding to the challenges of an increasingly transnational world, and to explore how multiculturalism engages gender and human rights in its conception of the national good. Despite the rhetoric around multiculturalism as a blueprint 4 6 for other nations to model themselves after, the future of state-sponsored policies is far from certain. Ultimately, the pressure is on multiculturalism to prove to the world that it can indeed promote meaningful social integration, advance genuine equality and create cohesion in the idea of unity though diversity. Chapter 1: Introduction 34 Endnotes: 1 Glaister, Dan. "Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorist threat" Guardian Unlimited. September 25 t h 2006. Accessed July 10 t h 2007 at http://www. guardian. 1880275,00.html 2 Isajiw, Wsevolod. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Press Inc. p. 11, based on WorldFactbook accounts of number of states containing four or more ethnic groups. 3 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 4 ibid 5 Ley, David. 2005. "Post-multiculturalism?" Working paper # 05-18, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RUM), Vancouver; Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2007. Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada (Fifth Edition). Toronto: Prentice Hall Inc.; Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 6 Phillips, Trevor. "Integration, Muiticulturalism and the C R E " accessed July 10 t h 2007 at http ://www. ere. html 7 Vertovec, Steven. 2006. "The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain" R U M W P 06-14 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 8 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall o f Muiticulturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (eds). p. 59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. p.74 9 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of Muiticulturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (eds). p.59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 1 0 Hiebert, Daniel, Jock Collins, Paul Spoonley. 2003. "Uneven Globalization: Neoliberal Regimes, Immigration and Muiticulturalism in Australia, Canada and N e w Zealand." R I I M W P 03-05 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 1 1 Bissoondath, Nei l . 1994. Selling illusions: The cult of muiticulturalism. Toronto: Penguin. Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The dark side of the nation: Essay on muiticulturalism, nationalism and gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, p. 89 Joppke, Christian and Ewa Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 1 4 Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. "The Return of Assimilation?" In Ethnicity without Groups. Rogers Brubaker (ed). p.116-131. London: Harvard University Press. 1 5 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of Muiticulturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (eds). p. 59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave Chapter 1: Introduction 35 MacMillan. ; Alund, Aleksandra and Carl-Ulrik Schierup. 1991. Paradoxes of Multiculturalism: Essays on Swedish Society. Aldershot: Avebury Press. 1 6 Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto. Nelson Press., p.xi 1 7 Hiebert, Daniel. 2003."Are Immigrants Welcome? Introducing the Vancouver Community Studies Survey" P J J M W P 03-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Hiebert, Daniel, Jock Collins, Paul Spoonley. 2003. "Uneven Globalization: Neoliberal Regimes, Immigration and Multiculturalism in Australia, Canada and N e w Zealand." R I I M W P 03-05 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 1 8 Lauren Hunter. (In Press) "Surveying Multiculturalism Research: A n Annotated Bibliography of Metropolis Working Papers (1996-2007)" Working Paper, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 1 9 Ley, David. 2007. "Multiculturalism: A Canadian Defense" R I I M W P 07-04, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 2 0 Kobayashi, Audrey (1993) on David Ley 's early work (1984) 2 1 Anthias, Floya and Cathie Lloyd (eds). 2001. Rethinking Anti-racisms: From theory to practice. London: Routledge Press, p.7 2 2 Kobayashi, Audrey. 1993. Multiculturalism: Representing a Canadian Institution. In Place/culture/representation. J. Duncan and D . Ley (eds), 205-231. New York: Routledge. 2 3 Ibid.; Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto: Nelson Press. 2 4 Hage, Bannerji, Bissoondath 2 5 Ley, David. 2007. "Multiculturalism: A Canadian Defense" R I I M W P 07-04, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Kobayashi, Audrey. 1993. Multiculturalism: Representing a Canadian Institution. In Place/ culture/ representation. J. Duncan and D . Ley (eds), 205-231. N e w York : Routledge.; Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. "Rethinking Multiculturalism for the 21 s t Century" R I I M W P 03-14, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 2 6 Ley, David. 2007. "Multiculturalism: A Canadian Defense" R I I M W P 07-04, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver 2 7 Kymlicka, Wi l l . 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 2 8 Nugent, Amy. 2006. Demography, National Myths, and Political Origins: Perceiving Official Multiculturalism in Quebec. Canadian Ethnic Studies vol. xxxviii, no.3, p.21-36. 2 9 Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto: Nelson Press. 3 0 Kobayashi, Audrey. 1993. Multiculturalism: Representing a Canadian Institution. In Place/culture/representation. J. Duncan and D . Ley (eds), 205-231. N e w York: Routledge. p.224 3 1 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003: Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p.2 3 2 Isajiw, Wsevolod. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Press Inc.p. 230; Juteau, Danielle. 1992. "The Chapter 1: Introduction 36 Sociology of Ethno-National Relations in Quebec" In Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in '90s Canada. V i c Satzewich (ed). p. 323-342. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Isajiw, Wsevolod. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Press Inc, p23 3 4 Hage, Ghassan. 1998. White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale: Pluto Press. 35 Gunew, Sneja. 2004. Haunted Nations: The colonial dimensions of multiculturalisms. London: Routledge. 3 6 Narayan, Uma. 2000. "Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique o f Cultural Essentialism" In Decentering the Center: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World. Narayan, Uma and Sandra Harding (ed). p. 80-100. 3 7 In the Australian case, the dominant majority is considered by Hage to be Anglo-Celtic. 3 8 Goldberg, David Theo. 1997. "Taking Stock: Counting by Race" In Racial Subjects: Writing on Race in America. New York: Routledge. 3 9 DeVere Brody, Jennifer. 1995. "Hyphen Nations" In Cruising the Performative: Interventions into the representation of ethnicity, nationality and sexuality. Sue Ellen Case, Philip Brett and Susan Leigh (eds). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 4 0 Isajiw, Wsevolod. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Press Inc. p. 17-35 4 1 ibid. p. 187 42 Goldberg, David Theo. 1997. Racial Subjects: Writing on Race in America. New York. Routledge; Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double-consciousness. London: Verso Press. 4 3 Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Frankenberg, Ruth (ed). 1997. Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. London: Duke University Press. 4 4 Goldberg, David Theo. 1997. Racial Subjects: Writing on Race in America. N e w York: Routledge. 4 5 In Australia, the concept of a dominant group usually refers to those o f Anglo-Celtic ancestry. 4 6 Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto: Nelson Press. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 37 R e v i e w o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e : S u p p o r t , C r i t i c i s m a n d C h a l l e n g e s f o r C o n t e m p o r a r y M u i t i c u l t u r a l i s m 2 .1 R e v i e w o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e Muiticulturalism may be many things, but easy isn't one o f them. The effort to establish and maintain a civil society is always a delicate balance of competing interests, influences and values; and the introduction of widespread ethnocultural diversity compounds these already significant challenges. It is here that muiticulturalism locates itself, at the crossroads of: expanding transnationalism and immigration; historically normative standards in social structure and values; the power struggles of racism, fundamentalism and protectionism; and the hope that peaceful integration can in fact exist. Subsequently, both state-sponsored and demographic multiculturalisms find themselves burdened with heavy expectations, as well as equally heavy blame when these expectations are not met. In the modern era, demographic muiticulturalism is a social reality - one that is highly unlikely to be reversed. However, the future of state-sponsored muiticulturalism is not so certain. Ultimately, the challenge state-sponsored muiticulturalism faces is to prove firstly that it is not the sole cause of the myriad problems attributed to it, and secondly, that it is capable of living up to the aspiration of equality-based civil harmony contained in its own rhetoric. There is a broad spectrum of success in state-sponsored multicultural policies in Western nations, ranging from Canada's widely supported and reasonably effective constitutional model, to the short-lived partial policy in the Netherlands, which has left in its wake a nation battling both racism and ethnically framed violence with few positive results. The details of the different multiculturalisms in the Netherlands, Australia, Britain and Sweden will be discussed in a brief policy review below, while a more detailed policy review of Canada can be found in the third and fourth chapters. However, prior to engaging in a review of any state's policy, it is important to understand the breadth of challenges common to all state-sponsored multiculturalisms. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 38 Regardless of nation, state-sponsored multiculturalism faces critiques on several grounds, namely that it: fosters isolation and ghettoization; supports a capitalist racialization of labour and poverty; forces ethnically framed people to foreground their ethnicity and culture whether they want to or not; provides a mechanism for hiding social injustice behind a mask of celebration and smiles; compromises grassroots efforts through state cooption; disadvantages ethnically framed women; and generally serves historically dominant groups as a political tool. In contrast to this are the arguments that multiculturalism, when done well: fosters intercultural dialogue; provides a forum for facing difficult issues of national belonging; highlights the concerns of women; sets valuable goals for economic inclusion and labour market participation; educates to prevent systemic and daily racism; recasts the national mainstream to include ethnically framed cultures; and generally is a political tool for ensuring equality. As one might imagine, given the wide gap between critical and supportive points, the burden of proof is substantial for academics taking either side of the debate. 2.2 C h a l l e n g e s t o S t a t e - S p o n s o r e d M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m a s a S o c i a l P h i l o s o p h y In 1976, Canadian historian Howard Palmer said of multiculturalism, "Perhaps we should not be too harsh in our judgment of a policy which is so new, and which is working against one of the oldest and most persistent of human vices: ethnic and racial prejudice." 4 7 This is both a valid and dangerous point. Unsubstantiated criticism of multiculturalism, attributing to the policy problems that are the product o f broader social difficulties of coexistence, can cause great damage to something that is attempting a very difficult task - the reordering of historically dominant values, society and culture to equally include, embrace and support ethnically framed groups with no strings attached. In essence, over-zealous and ill-thought-out attacks can harm efforts by historically dominant groups, politically and socially, to do "the right thing." However, the avoidance of criticism altogether is never of benefit to the greater good, particularly when it allows the historically dominant group to continue to define without input from ethnically framed groups exactly what "the right thing" and "the greater good" might mean. Therefore, policy criticism must be weighed against not only the pros and cons of the Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 39 policy itself, but also against the actions that might occur were the policy not in place to begin with. 2.2.1 "Muiticulturalism Enables Ethnic Segregation" One of the most serious charges leveled against muiticulturalism is the claim that rather than promoting integration, the policy is in fact responsible for creating ethnic segregation and ghettoization. Rightly or wrongly, this has been the main rationale for doing away with the policy in Sweden and the Netherlands, and is a claim currently being made in Britain by Trevor Phillips, who holds substantial influence as head of the government established Commission for Equalities and Human Rights. While the same claim has also been made about Canadian muiticulturalism when the policy was younger, evidence from recent decades is mounting that the foundational philosophy of the policy in Canada does not support a reading of muiticulturalism as a dividing force.48 As one of the main discussions of the thesis, the evidence on this issue will be presented as the chapters unfold. 2.2.2 "Muiticulturalism Supports the Spread of Racist Capitalism" One of the most persistent critiques of muiticulturalism is that by creating the impression that all is well within ethnically framed communities, Western nations are able to exploit these people's labour. Unfortunately, those who take this line of critique often fail to locate their perspective in specific policies or locations. For example, Colin Mooers argues that muiticulturalism embraces diversity in a way that fetishizes "the other" as a commodity, while simultaneously obscuring a vision of the real labour and class inequalities of race relations in a capitalist system.49 According to Mooers, who bases much of his theory on the work of Himani Bannerji,50 liberal capitalism has created a system of citizenship that is both abstract and prescriptive, guiding people to a perception of equality that remains unrealized. Muiticulturalism aids in this by encouraging the belief that liberal capitalism is capable of promoting inclusivity for all peoples, both dominant and oppressed. Rather than actually acting to facilitate inclusion, Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 40 multiculturalism instead engages in a form o f difference recognition that labels "the other" as exotic, different, monstrous and/or fascinating. The very philosophy that drives multiculturalism in a liberal society is therefore based on the consumption of "the other" as a form of commodity, while erasing the visibility of the labour of "the other" in an unequal economic system. Under this system, multiculturalism acts to enable the capitalist exploitation of immigrant and ethnic labour, while creating an abstract construct of equality based on diversity, but fails to actually deliver concrete forms of equality. This reading of the policy is also shared by Fleras and El l iot t , 5 1 Floya Anthias, 5 2 and to a certain extent, Ghassan Hage. 5 3 It is important to observe that there is a substantial amount of information supporting the idea that significant labour market inequalities persist along racial lines in these countries. However, what remains unclear in these critiques is whether or not this inequality would function similarly without state-sponsored multiculturalism. None of the above authors spends time dealing directly with the actual workings of the policies, weighing the nation's policy decisions in terms o f results that can be traced back to a specific policy decision or piece of policy language; indeed, multiculturalism is handled as an abstract concept for use by the state in making people feel happy about a situation which is racially unjust. Ironically, as Audrey Kobayashi points out, in Canada, multiculturalism has had a significant role since the mid 1990s in combating labour market inequalities; however, Kobayashi does state in connection with these steps forward that racism still exists (particularly in popular media and the labour market) and must be more widely recognized by the system. 5 4 This concept is supported by the 2006 annual priorities of the Multiculturalism Program, which openly identified "systemic discrimination" for women and ethnically framed groups in the labour market as something that multiculturalism must tackle with corrective measures, education, resources and strong commitment. 5 5 While Mooers and Bannerji's critiques of Canadian multiculturalism may have been accurate in the 1980s and early 1990s, they are a hard sell in contemporary times. I f the authors had differentiated between popular cooption or media misuse of the policy versus the aims of the policy itself, then their criticisms would be more valid. This is not to say that racial inequalities in the Canadian labour market no Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 41 longer exist,36 but merely that claims against state-sponsored muiticulturalism for supporting this inequality is a false reading of the situation, based largely in popular perceptions and not in policy realities. It should be noted, though, that critiques such as Hage's review of Australian muiticulturalism and Anthias's work on Britain remain more accurate by virtue of the fact that muiticulturalism in these nations has not taken on labour market inequalities with the force that Canadian policy has in recent years. While employment equity policies do exist, they are largely independent of muiticulturalism. 2 . 2 . 3 "Muiticulturalism Forces People to Identify as Ethnic" Muiticulturalism, whether state-sponsored or demographic, faces some of its most significant philosophical challenges here, owing largely to the fact that as a plurality discourse, the concept relies heavily on the identification of multiple "others." The wealth of information on concepts of racialized difference and identification of "the other" is vast, and is not the core subject of this body of work. However, it is important to briefly examine this idea because it informs the framework under which state-sponsored muiticulturalism operates. Many of the critiques of muiticulturalism on this front emerge from the lived experiences of academics and as such they should not be easily discounted. It is one thing for Bannerji to claim that muiticulturalism supports "racist capitalism" without referring to the policy, and an entirely different matter for her to say that she has a lived experience of exclusion, regardless of any policy intentions to the contrary. Neil Bissoondath57 and (in an Australian context) Ghassan Hage5 8 have similar responses to the policy - namely that they have found it to be a mechanism of the state by which they are labeled "ethnic" and subsequently managed in strategic ways that keep them to the margins of the nation. Hage's work on this is particularly compelling because he combines it with interview data from white Australian respondents on the nature of Australian identity and the construction of national spaces. Hage also produces the most convincing argument for the policy's role in creating unequal racial dynamics of power and naming, not through details of the policy, but by concretely illustrating how it has been used to produce this Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 42 effect. In Canada, Eva Mackey's field research in Ontario around understandings of Canadian multiculturalism identifies similar concerns, where many respondents of the historically dominant community emphasized the need for ethnically framed people to celebrate their diversity in private, and to publicly assimilate to "Canadian" values. The respondents also complained that Canada's emphasis on diversity had granted ethnically framed people special recognition that "Canadian Canadians" did not get to share i n . 5 9 Looking at the multiculturalism's of Europe, it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that the policy is designed to "manage ethnics" when the policy guidelines openly state that multiculturalism is for ethnically framed immigrants and not for Europeans. 6 0 (This will be discussed in more detail when European policies are reviewed below.) However, in Canada and Australia, the policy is supposed to be for everyone, to celebrate and preserve all cultures equally. However, as these critics and others point out, the theory and reality of this are often far apart. In a Canadian context, Kas Mazurek observes, "The heart of the matter is that multiculturalism - as articulated at its formal inception as state policy in 1971 - was a genuinely radical social vision that was soon seen to constitute a threat to the hierarchal status quo in Canada. Consequently, to preserve the status quo, the policy had to be subtly transformed and its radical potential neutralized." 6 1 Mazurek contends that this was achieved through increasing the emphasis on cultural celebration, and de-emphasizing "the amelioration of economic, political and other social disadvantages suffered by minority ethnic groups." 6 2 Mazurek, in 1992, predicted that multiculturalism would falter severely over the next decade, based on the previous decade's results. However, as chapter four wil l discuss, the change of government from Conservative to Liberal in 1992 resulted in a renewed commitment to the policy's functional rather than symbolic value, as well as a revision of its foundational philosophies, and throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the policy progressively strengthened its capacity to produce real world change rather than symbolic inclusion. However, that being said, the charges these scholars make against multiculturalism are an ongoing challenge to the policy, and one that must be continually reassessed. Multiculturalism faces the greatest challenge to its legitimacy when it uses the Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 43 identification of difference for the purpose o f propagandizing inclusion at the expense of concrete actions towards realized equality. 2.2.4 "Muiticulturalism is Bad for Women" Over the years, the charge has been repeatedly laid that muiticulturalism is bad for women, and it is consistently one that fails to locate itself in any actual policy language. There are serious problems, which wil l be discussed in detail in chapter five, with unequivocally equating state-sponsored muiticulturalism and demographic muiticulturalism when it comes to gender. One camp of thought on this subject is the universalist argument, represented predominantly by Susan Okin, that muiticulturalism encourages the spread of patriarchal cultures, and subsequently provides a framework under which patriarchal cultures can immigrate to and flourish in liberal Western nations. 6 3 O n the opposite side o f the argument, but still making the point that muiticulturalism is bad for women, are feminist antiracist scholars, represented largely by Bannerji, who contend that muiticulturalism hides racial inequalities and therefore disadvantages women of colour. 6 4 The difference in these positions is substantial, particularly given the backlash Okin has received from the antiracist feminist camp for her essentialization of patriarchy and gender based violence as products of ethnically framed cultures. 6 5 A n example of this reasoning can be found in the works of Fleras and Elliott who, although attempting to consider the position of women, do so from a culturally normative Western standpoint.6 6 In attempting to illustrate how culture can conflict with basic human rights, Fleras and Elliott zero in on the practice of female genital mutilation ( F G M ) - something that is becoming an increasingly critiqued tactic by feminist antiracist scholars as a sensationalized rallying point that disproportionately captures the imagination of the West as an example of "savageness" on the part of ethnically framed cultures. While F G M is definitely a cause for concern, to use this as the primary example of a cultural practice violating basic human rights is to take an extreme practice, affecting proportionally few women in relation to other gender-based violence that Canadians from Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 44 all cultural groups face, and to inflate the perception that the cultural practices of ethnically framed groups are simply incompatible with the values of civil society. Considering that this type of essentialism is critiqued elsewhere in Fleras and Elliott 's work, it is a remarkably poorly chosen example - one that appears more than once through the book. So, although Fleras and Elliott are aware of racial essentialisms when it comes to problems with multiculturalism, they appear unaware of the same concerns within their own work. Their discussions tend to be overly informed by the type o f second wave feminist approach Sherene Razack critiques as an identity based on a saviour mentality, unequal power relations and stereotypical representations of women o f colour in need of rescuing from their own cultures. 6 7 Thus, while universalist feminists (a la Okin) and antiracist feminists can agree that multiculturalism is bad for women, both camps cannot agree on the reasons why -the first group contends that multiculturalism interferes with the law's capacity to limit harmful cultural identities and practices, in essence giving them too much freedom to do as they like, and the second argues that multiculturalism retains too much control over the identities and cultures of ethnically framed people, in essence managing them as outsiders. 2 . 3 I n S u p p o r t o f C a n a d i a n M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m Few scholars can be said to have done more for defending the foundational philosophies of Canadian multiculturalism than Charles Taylor and Wi l l Kymlicka, both of whom have contributed core texts on how to resolve seemingly impossible contradictions in diversity debates. The works of Wi l l Kymlicka, arguably Canada's foremost scholar on multiculturalism, have been enormously influential, particularly his 1995 book Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, which provides a detailed clarification and defense of different aspects of collective rights as they relate to national diversity. While the scope of his theories is too vast to relate here, many of them appear throughout the following thesis chapters. Suffice it to say that Kymlicka is one of Canadian multiculturalism's true champions, whose work consistently and persuasively defends the compatibility of multicultural values and policies with modern liberal societies. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 45 Also highly influential and written in the same period as Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship, is Charles Taylor's article Muiticulturalism and "The Politics of Recognition" Written in 1992 in response to the failure o f the Meech Lake Accord, the treatise provides a refutation of the idea that diversity had failed in Canada and was potentially a problem that could not be fixed. In place o f a "politics of difference," Taylor argues for a new way of conceptualizing how individuals interact, namely by suggesting mechanisms through which mutual valuing rather than difference might form the initial contact between people, and subsequently their societal relationship as it develops. Taylor contends that in Canada, "two conceptions of rights-liberalism have confronted each other, albeit in confused fashion, throughout the long and inconclusive constitutional debates of recent years" 6 8 - "English Canada's" concept of equality as same treatment for all peoples, and Quebec's and Aboriginal claims for collective rights based on the vulnerability of their positions within the nation. However, according to Taylor, efforts at compromise between the two positions failed in the late 80s and early 90s because each felt threatened by the presence of the other. 6 9 Taylor proposes a way forward through this apparent stalemate by insisting, "One has to distinguish the fundamental liberties, those that should never be infringed and therefore ought to be unassailably entrenched, on one hand, from privileges and immunities that are important, but that can be revoked or restricted for reasons of public policy - although one would need a strong reason to do this - on the other." 7 0 In this spirit, "the importance o f certain forms of uniform treatment" should be weighed by governments against "the importance of cultural survival, and opt sometimes in favour of the latter." 7 1 Guided by a politics of equal recognition and respect, Taylor urges that societies shift their perspective towards these collective rights. "Just as all must have equal civil rights and equal voting rights, regardless of race or culture, so all should enjoy the presumption that their traditional culture has value." 7 2 (Taylor is unsure that this should be a full right, but a proposal for what such a full right might look like wil l be presented in chapter six of this thesis). To that end, Taylor finds that the principles of muiticulturalism in Canada "build on" this commitment to a "politics of equal respect." 7 3 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 46 2.4 S u r v e y i n g V i e w s o n M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m i n t h e M e t r o p o l i s P r o j e c t In Canada, many of the top scholars on multiculturalism and immigration participate in the Metropolis Project, an international initiative pioneered in Canada to study all things related to immigration and integration, and to make the research results widely available so that scholars, policy makers and community activists can work together to understand and improve conditions for Canadians. It is useful to note that this initiative is funded by various government branches (including Canadian Heritage) and is a testament to the encouraging collaborative direction multiculturalism has taken in recent years. In this context, it is useful to examine what the current thinking is on the policy, comparable to taking the pulse of Canadian multiculturalism. However, before beginning down this road, it is also important to point out that those scholars who contribute to the Metropolis Project, though diverse in their fields, have already to a certain extent "bought in" to the idea of a government-sponsored multiculturalism, or at the very least, to the concept of government-academic pairings over policy in a liberal framework. While there are some dissenting voices, these academics do not tend to represent either the far left or the far right in terms of approaches to policy. The idea of multiculturalism in the Metropolis working paper series is both critiqued and supported by different authors (and sometimes by the same author), as is the case more broadly in academic literature. It therefore comes as no surprise that academics are not o f one mind about the policy. However, while Metropolis authors locate significant ongoing challenges for multiculturalism, particularly around ethnically framed participation in the labour market and in settlement issues, the vast majority of contributors view multiculturalism as a useful (though not fully realized) tool in combating discrimination and pursuing equality. Their research is comprised primarily of case studies and research surveys on specific issues, relating almost entirely to policy making and the effects of policies already in place. Although there are several hundred working papers in the Metropolis Series, those that deal with multiculturalism directly tend to be grouped around a number of core Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 47 subjects whose repeat appearance in scholarly investigation indicate locations o f ongoing challenge for Canadian muiticulturalism. These areas can be loosely grouped as issues of inclusion around urban planning and governance, media depictions and public perceptions of diversity, and employment equity/barriers for people from ethnically framed groups. 2.4 .1 Building Inclusive Cities One of the foremost locations for judging the effects of muiticulturalism policy, rightly or wrongly, is in the ethnic integration of major urban centres, marked as much by what is not seen (civil unrest, race riots, ghettoization, etc.) as by what is seen (participation in governance, diversity in regionalization, access to and use of services, etc.). Several case studies appear in the Metropolis Series on matters relating to these issues, both what is seen and what is absent, lending evidence to the idea that while muiticulturalism in Canada remains an imperfect policy, the nation is better off trying to improve it than do away with it. Using Canada as an example, David Ley argues that muiticulturalism is a useful tool in combating discrimination and isolation, i f used properly. 7 4 Ley demonstrates the functionality of the policy in conflict resolution on the "monster home" conflict in Vancouver in the late 1990s, where an influx of Chinese immigrants disrupted what the historically dominant community perceived to be its right to determine the architecture o f the neighbourhoods. In that instance, Ley finds that muiticulturalism is capable of preventing a historically dominant majority from imposing nostalgic readings of the city over the rights of immigrant populations to make changes. In that specific case, muiticulturalism intervened to protect ethnically framed communities from being forced to conform to historically dominant cultural standards, granting them recognition and authority in public space; multicultural policy was also used to mediate the dispute in such a way that the long-term residents and the newer migration of Chinese-Canadians were able to reach a compromise that satisfied everyone. (It is useful to note in relation to Minelle Mahtani's work 7 5 - which wil l be discussed below - that Ley refers to the Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 4 8 damaging role of the media in exacerbating ethno-cultural conflict between ethnically framed and historically dominant groups. The successful multicultural policy intervention was only achieved in negotiations between the city and the stakeholder groups behind closed doors, after the media was removed from the situation.) Ley, whose recent work compares Canadian and European policies, contends that it is not multiculturalism itself that is creating isolation and a lack of social integration in Britain, but a failure to adequately practice multiculturalism and therefore to only partially transform society to support diversity. 7 6 This idea is echoed in Sandercock, Dickout and Winkler's findings on the Sri Lankan Tamil community in Toronto. 7 7 Although the authors identify a sense of isolationism in the Sri Lankan Tamil community, this was caused by a lack of confidence in the strength of multiculturalism; the rhetoric o f the policy proved to be far stronger than the actual practice. Sandercock refers to this as a lack of "rich multiculturalism." This is mirrored in the research of Annick Germain, 7 8 cited by Sandercock, who claims that Canada contains a "peaceful but distant" interaction between ethnic groups that does not easily encourage a sense of shared belonging in the community, but may help to diffuse potential conflict situations through protocols of polite distance. It would seem from the articles by Ley and Sandercock et al that the danger of ethnic isolation results not from the practice of active multiculturalism, but from a half-implemented weak multiculturalism that does not live up to the language of human rights and equality contained in the policy itself. They provide specific policy recommendations for local, provincial and federal governments to address the gap between the promise of multiculturalism (or what they call the potential of "rich multiculturalism") and the reality of partial citizenship and ongoing discrimination. The gap between weak and strong multiculturalism rests in many cases on the delivery of services to the community, and to the environment of acceptance created in the general environment through both policy and popular media. As Ley points out, multicultural policy is enacted not only on grand-scale, nation-wide policy levels, but also (and perhaps most effectively) on smaller local levels. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 49 Jurisdictional issues appear to cause problems with muiticulturalism in Canada, often created by both federal/provincial jockeying over funds and responsibility, and by the slow growth of municipal involvement in muiticulturalism despite the fact that municipalities are very much implicated in the success (or lack thereof) of multicultural integration in major urban centres. In their review of local level government involvement with muiticulturalism, David Edgington and Thomas Hutton find that jurisdictional concerns between municipal, provincial and federal governments often impede the delivery of services. 7 9 Their review of policies in the Vancouver area shows that while "core areas" such as Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby and N e w Westminster have more programs and policies in place to support muiticulturalism, areas towards the Fraser Valley show extremely low levels o f what Edgington and Hutton call "multicultural readiness" - the capacity to positively respond to increased diversity in the population. Ley 's research on the Vancouver "monster home" conflict demonstrates the policies Edgington and Hutton refer to, and provides a convincing rationale for supporting Edgington and Hutton's claim that "multicultural readiness" must be increased at the municipal level of government in order to facilitate integration and a sense o f social belonging amongst immigrants. Hiebert's projections on the 2017 population of Vancouver correlate with Edgington and Hutton's recommendations, demonstrating that significant diversity wil l continue to increase in the Vancouver area, especially in its periphery, and that policies must be prepared for this shift. 8 0 Despite the encouragement for increased municipal engagement, the observed lack o f "on the ground" involvement for multicultural integration recorded by the researchers shows that there are obvious gaps between Canadian muiticulturalism's rhetoric of inclusive society, and the capacity to actualize inclusion through programs and jurisdictional cooperation. However, what is significant in the study is the fact that the researchers feel the situation can be resolved. Indeed, the study itself was commissioned by local government in order to help municipalities become better prepared. One possible challenge for integrating muiticulturalism policies in municipalities may be the lack of diversity in government itself. Both Jerome Black 8 1 and Carolle Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 50 Simard*'' independently find that there is a persistent under-representation of women and ethnically framed people in positions o f political influence - a situation Black contends limits the ability of these groups to participate in the equal formulation of Canadian citizenship. Simard examines the ethnic background of sixteen municipal councils in Quebec in order to determine participation rates, access to voter groups, and percentage of ethnically framed people occupying positions of political authority at a local level. Her findings reveal that ethnically framed people have lower rates o f election to municipal government than those of historically dominant groups, and women have disturbingly low success rates at being elected for both groups. Simard concludes that ethnically framed group participation rates remain well below the proportional average based on population, particularly in areas outside metropolitan centres. This indicates an urban/rural gap in adapting/responding to increased diversity in population. The transformation of major Canadian urban areas is the subject o f many articles in the Metropolis working paper series. Although not all these articles deal with multiculturalism, they engage the topic of increased ethno-cultural diversity and the need for urban planners and governments to respond accordingly. O f these articles, Sandercock provides perhaps the most useful exploration o f this increased diversity in the context of future directions for multiculturalism in Canada. 8 3 Like Ley, Sandercock rejects the idea that multiculturalism should be abandoned because it functions to keep ethnic groups divided. In her review of British and Canadian urban planning philosophies around inter-group engagement and cohesion, Sandercock claims that coping with a politics of difference is an unavoidable reality in current times, and as such one should not desire to do away with this, but instead to engage it in productive ways. Multiculturalism, Sandercock finds, is a useful means of dealing with difference. However, Sandercock qualifies this with an appeal for what she terms multicultural perspective. Multicultural perspective involves widespread and committed integration of the founding principles of equality, belonging and identity that are contained in multiculturalism. Sandercock acknowledges that multiculturalism can have multiple meanings, and therefore multiple policy and ideological implications. She Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 51 defines useful muiticulturalism as two key ideas: the right to difference, and "the right to the city" - the right to inhabit, change, define and occupy the city, in short to treat the city as those of historically majorities have traditionally done. The first, Sandercock argues, must move forward in tandem with the values and practice of human rights; the second is based on the recognition that ethnic groups have a right not only to belong, but also to own, to freely inhabit, to shape, to direct, and to (in short) behave in the city as those who currently enjoy "rights to the city." However, at its core, i f muiticulturalism is to succeed, it requires as deep a commitment as possible to the higher values of muiticulturalism, and a necessary integration of these values across all aspects of Canadian life. In Sandercock's view, the way forward is not to abandon muiticulturalism, but rather to practice it to the fullest of its potential. Sandercock's work on the concept of a multicultural perspective follows critiques she received for her widely read but highly critiqued book Towards Cosmopolis, in which Sandercock praises Canadian muiticulturalism highly to the extent that some critics felt she had not accurately assessed some of the problems with the policy. Acknowledging the validity of these concerns to a certain extent, Sandercock worked to develop her concept of multicultural perspective. B y her own admission in the above article, the earlier findings of Sandercock's book Towards Cosmopolis - namely that the normative idea of muiticulturalism could be equated with cosmopolitanism for greater social inclusion - was a problematic conclusion. Sandercock acknowledges that Western democracies have always racialized the political and social processes of belonging, which include policies such as muiticulturalism. According to her revised position, muiticulturalism must therefore be examined more closely before it can be used as the basis for urban planning and other decisions that forward ideas of social belonging and participation. However, Sandercock is not willing to abandon the idea that muiticulturalism can be made to work. Similarly she insists that an understanding of "difference" is a key component, but it need not be abandoned or viewed in isolation; the way forward is to engage continuously with the paradoxical questions of difference, knowing that they cannot productively be abandoned any time in the foreseeable future, and must therefore form a part of any solid line of questioning. Sandercock's frank Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 52 evaluation of her earlier willingness to accept the policy at face value yields productive ideas about moving forward in a more critical way. This is achieved namely through examining rights and privileges held by historically dominant groups, and questioning the authority and capacity of the policy to increase inclusivity in the face of reluctance to change. Saloojee's review of multicultural policy in Canada comes to similar conclusions. 8 4 Saloojee contends that multiculturalism is not living up to the standards of equality in democratic citizenship. The error, in Saloojee's view, that is causing multiculturalism to fall short of its potential is the emphasis on group ethnicity and cultural retention. This focus should be set aside in favour of increased emphasis on social integration based on belonging, active participation and equal access, specifically in political and labour market arenas. Saloojee calls on the government at local, provincial and federal levels to increase its level of involvement, evaluation and accountability to the core values contained in the notion of multicultural citizenship, and to be more vigilant about ensuring that the emphasis on social integration is based on full participation and human rights. Social integration is a large issue for many authors in the Metropolis working papers series. However, there are differing views on whether or not full integration should be viewed as the most desirable end result. Qadeer contends that not all forms of ethnic segregation should be viewed negatively, as the result of social inequality and discrimination. 8 5 Many ethnic neighbourhoods have grown organically and provide valuable resources, networking opportunities and business opportunities to ethnically framed groups. Neighbourhoods may also be based on other forms of identity identification, such as sexual orientation, national or linguistic ties. Qadeer argues that not only should one not assume that the presence of ethnic enclaves is automatically negative, one should not assume that all enclave communities are ethnically or economically-based. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 53 2.4.2 Media Depictions and Public Perceptions At a surface level, one can contend that official muiticulturalism in Canada is designed to break down stereotypes and promote integration through common equality. However, despite a commitment to undoing narratives o f inequality, Canadian muiticulturalism has its own set of myths and narratives that are both supported by and projected through the policy. Subsequently, while muiticulturalism may battle the media when it comes to racial profiling, muiticulturalism's reliance on ethnic identity creates its own problematic form of labeling. As various Metropolis researchers have illustrated, muiticulturalism in Canada is as much about perception as it is about policy. Michael Doucet 8 6 looks specifically at Toronto, evaluating its reputation as a multicultural city. Like Sandercock, he rejects the easy equation of cosmopolitanism with muiticulturalism, arguing that the presence of increased diversity does not necessitate multicultural engagement. Doucet finds that although Toronto has overly elevated the level o f its multicultural success, muiticulturalism has played an important role in establishing positive social change. Like many others in the Metropolis working paper series, Doucet contends that muiticulturalism, imperfect as it is in its current manifestation, has much to offer and should be pursued more vigorously in order to bring about widespread social change based on equality and belonging. However, Doucet's research highlights how muiticulturalism's reliance on perceptions of inclusion is as important and "real" to the people of Toronto as the policy's actual implementation. This raises concerns about whether Canadians, with their longstanding attachment to muiticulturalism as a national philosophy, are able to see the policy clearly, as an entity with concrete effects. Doucet is not alone in identifying the problematic link between Canadian muiticulturalism and the myth of an almost idyllic diversity. Both Michael Doucet 8 7 and Harold Troper 8 8 examine the urban legend of the U N declaration of Toronto as the world's most multicultural city, and find that it is more fancy than fact. Although there is substantial diversity, neither find evidence that the city can lay claim to the title, or that Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 54 the awarding o f the title ever actually took place. However, Troper claims nothing defines Toronto as a city more than its historical and contemporary engagement with cultural pluralism, despite the fact that this engagement is contested and imperfect. He frames this as Toronto having a love of pluralism and a discomfort with immigrants - a contradiction whereby human beings and cultures are neatly, and falsely, divided from one another. Applying Troper's finding more broadly, this seemingly impossible dichotomy can arguably be located within the policy itself, where individuals have rights and cultures belong to groups, but where cultural rights for individuals remains an uncomfortable matter for multiculturalism. The engagement between narrative and history, between the perception of culture and the treatment of individuals, is a core struggle for many authors reviewing multiculturalism. While Doucet and Troper both reference Toronto's problematic multicultural reputation, both also locate the media as a culprit in exacerbating social difficulties and misrepresenting diversity in particular ways depending on whether the desired effect is to elevate multicultural Canada or to sensationalize the actions o f a particular immigrant group. Minelle Mahtani provides two articles that critique the role o f popular media in shaping attitudes to immigrant and ethnic group acceptance and integration. Her findings show that negative stereotypes, constant under-representation and deliberate misrepresentation are key factors in shaping anti-immigrant, anti-minority attitudes in the mainstream. This affects not only public attitudes, but also material considerations; specifically, she considers the treatment of Chinese immigrants and refugees in Vancouver, and Musl im immigrants in Sydney, Australia. In both cases, she and her co-authors demonstrate that negative media depictions have far reaching consequences. In understanding this, Leonie Sandercock's idea of "right to the city" is particularly useful. According to Mahtani and her co-authors in the two articles she has produced for Metropolis on media, negative depictions create low public support levels, which impact immigrant and ethnic minority access to community development. Because the stereotypes and depictions in the media create a vision o f immigrants and ethnically Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 55 framed populations as the source o f civic problems, bringing with them disease, chaos, violence and a strain on social resources, they are seen as undesirable additions to already-established communities and neighbourhoods, and they are therefore denied what Sandercock terms the "right to the city." While this goes against the principles o f muiticulturalism, Mahtani and her co-authors (Dunn in 2001, Mountz in 2002) find that a deliberate government intervention in the name of multicultural equality can provide a powerful reassessment of media portrayals of immigrants and ethnically framed groups, influencing public opinion polls in favour of diversity. She therefore urges the government to become far more involved in media delivery, and more active in utilizing muiticulturalism to prevent media abuse in the form of under-representation and misrepresentation of non-white populations. In this context, Mahtani is an advocate for a stronger state-sponsored policy. Mahtani's findings are interesting when placed next to work by Hiebert, Collins and Spoonley 9 0 about neo-liberalism in Canada, Australia and N e w Zealand. The authors find that in recent decades Canada has had an almost unwavering positive public opinion of immigration, unlike Australia and New Zealand. Immigration in Canada is linked in public opinion to economic growth, a way of replacing population because of a low national birthrate, and a means of combating the potential labour shortage caused by the retirement of baby-boomers from the workforce. Hiebert, Spoonley and Collins find that although these situations exist in all three countries, Canada is the most strongly committed to muiticulturalism, the most in favour of immigration, and the only one of the three not to have elected right-leaning politicians in the past two decades who have openly advocated for a white population and a reduction in support for the retention o f diversity. In addition to the comparison of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hiebert has recently released a study of the degree to which immigrants felt welcomed and welcomed others into the Vancouver area. 9 1 The results of this survey show that for the most part, muiticulturalism remains strongly supported by Vancouverites, both newly arrived and Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 56 Canadian-born. Hiebert did find, however, that the degree of support for immigration and multiculturalism varied with different factors such as education, income and gender of the respondents. For example, women were overall less supportive of immigration and more supportive of multiculturalism than men, which Hiebert attributes to the labour market competition for lower wage jobs between women and immigrants, and to the general social attribution of culture preservation to women. A n interesting cross-correlation to Mahtani's work on media is Hiebert's finding that the more educated a person is, regardless of gender, the more they are inclined to favourably support immigration; this could indicate that those who are well educated are less susceptible to media tools such as under-representation or misrepresentation, and are overall more inclined to form long-term opinions based on other sources of material, or alternatively that they perceive they have less to lose in terms of labour market competition. Hiebert's findings also indicate that native-born Canadians are more accepting of immigrants from diverse parts of the world than are other immigrants, indicating that long-term participation in a society espousing the values of multiculturalism may act to favourably dispose Canadians to diversity and immigration. Interestingly, both native-born and immigrants desired a common Canadian culture, and felt that immigrants should adapt to a Canadian value system; multiculturalism plays a complicating role, ensuring that this common Canadian culture and value system is pluralized. This begs the question of whether or not Canadian values and common culture are more desirable because they are not seen to be singular. In effect, both immigrants and native-born populations desire to be Canadian, and to inhabit a country with other Canadians, but there is a certain plurality and flexibility in what this means that allows for an increased perception of inclusion and inclusivity. Multiculturalism's role in this permits a complexity of interpretation that in other nations might be perceived as mutually exclusive or contradictory. However in Canada, not only does this seemingly contradictory complexity appear to be working, but it also appears to be working fairly well. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 57 2.4.3 Failing in Employment Equity Aside from articles on settlement and urban planning, employment studies form the highest area of contributed articles in the Metropolis working paper series; this demonstrates that two main unresolved areas o f multicultural engagement are labour market involvement and urban settlement patterns (isolation/integration/restricted access to the city's facilities and resources). Relying on the surveys and projections compiled by Hiebert and others, Pendakur finds that despite muiticulturalism, significant inequalities exist in the labour market for immigrants and ethnically framed groups. 9 2 Although Pendakur feels a portion of the gap in labour market performance can be explained through factors such as lower educational credentials or specific labour choices (such as working hours), there is a persistent disparity based exclusively on ethnicity. Although many of the papers that deal directly with ethnically framed participation in the labour market do not engage with muiticulturalism beyond casual references to the presence of diversity and the general idea that muiticulturalism in Canada means integration, the findings of these papers speak directly to the fact that muiticulturalism still has work to do i f fair and equal integration is to be achieved in the labour market through anti-racism and employer/employee education initiatives. In fact, in a survey of over thirty Metropolis Project working papers submitted over the past decade relating to labour market participation, economic situation and ethnicity of immigrant groups, all authors find that ethnicity negatively correlates with labour market performance, resulting from a variety of factors such as unrecognized education credentials, lack of Canadian work experience, and discrimination based on accent. 9 3 In all research where gender is considered,, women fare worse than men in closing the labour market gap, which researchers attribute to the dual obstacles of systemic gender and racial norms, and the additional family duties many women are expected to bear. According to Creese and Dowling, these inequalities are exacerbated by social beliefs about gender, which the authors contend are in part produced by muiticulturalism's reading of ethnic identity as a gender-neutral term - one that erases women's experience Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 58 in favour of male norms. 9 4 Through multiculturalism's approach to ethnicity without gender, women become invisible in the system, as does their experience of inequality. The consistency of findings and the more than forty articles relating to ethnically framed labour market performance indicates an immense challenge to Canadian multiculturalism, the seriousness o f which cannot be overstated. Creese's work with African women immigrants offers evidence that normative value assumptions about accent, language and cultural practice hinder women immigrants' ability to participate fully in both the economy and society. 9 5 Creese refers to one of the focus group participants who questioned whether multiculturalism was working i f it failed to protect her in the job market from discrimination based on accent, not on fluency. Theoretically, under the goals of the multicultural policy and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination based on race is not permitted; by extension, the cultural-linguistic interpretation of pronunciation (accent) should not be a barrier to the workforce or to society simply because a historically dominant norm of pronunciation has been established. However, as chapter six wil l discuss, the capacity for women to claim discrimination based on cultural norms is far harder than to make this claim for discrimination based on religion, race or gender, indicating a gap in the rights package multiculturalism supposedly offers. Creese claims (based on the results of these focus groups) that the racialization of language is intensely related to the racialization of a black body. (Creese does not extend the research to investigate whether white African immigrant women from parallel areas have faced similar discrimination based on accent.) 2.4.4. General Summary Overwhelmingly, although observing current failings in the policy, authors in the Metropolis working paper series appear in favour of retaining multiculturalism, with the caveat that it should be applied to the fullest of its potential i f it is to be successful. Overall, they do not support following European and Australian trends to back away from multiculturalism, or the idea that multiculturalism is fundamentally responsible for ethnic Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 59 isolation in geographic or social situations. However, all authors make reference to the idea that muiticulturalism is part of a system of inequality. Authors do not, for the most part, appear to support the idea that the system would function to facilitate greater equality i f muiticulturalism was removed. They therefore give conditional support to the policy, and urge governments at all levels (federal, provincial and municipal) to engage more actively in upholding the human rights and higher values contained in multicultural policy. Many authors refer to the need for multicultural policy to shift its approach to cope with the changing nature of diversity, and to engage populations not as a compilation of well-defined ethnic groups, but as a population of individuals who form myriad attachments to multiple communities, and who are capable of great flexibility in their identity and national affiliations. In this context, urban settlement research, and focus group research with those from racialized groups is a powerful indicator of what is working in the system and what still needs to be addressed. In summary, Metropolis working papers put forward the idea that muiticulturalism should not be done away with; it should be done better. 2 . 5 S t a t e - S p o n s o r e d M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m s i n O t h e r W e s t e r n N a t i o n s 2 .5 .1 Australia The evolution of Australia's diversity management strategy has had four distinct stages: full assimilation, as a founding national principle; integration (in the late 1960s); muiticulturalism (introduced in 1973, but coming into effect some years later); and post-Howard administration muiticulturalism (post 1996). As Christin Inglis relates, "For most of Australia's history the favoured policy was that of assimilation, which assumed, and required, that immigrants would rapidly adopt Australian culture and practices and beomce'invisible'." 9 6 However, as post war economic expansion led to an increase in immigrant numbers by approximately 1% per year, by the 1960s it was becoming more and more acceptable for immigrants to retain their cultural practices as long as they did so in the privacy of their own homes. This change in public attitude was marked by the introduction of the Integration policy in the late 1960s, which was not so much an active Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 60 policy as it was a public declaration on behalf of government that private identities were fine as long as they did not exist in public. 9 8 In 1972, the "look the other way" approach to ethnic diversity, was challenged by the newly elected Labour Party. Directly influenced by the Canadian policy, the Labour government was impressed with the concept and keen to propose its own version. In a manner similar to the way Canadian multiculturalism was introduced to the House in 1971, A . J . Grassby, Minister for Immigration, released a reference paper to the government entitled, " A Multi-cultural Society for the Future." This was followed up in 1977 with another report of a similar nature, and the first official policy steps were approved by government in 1978. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (which later became the Office of Multicultural Affairs) was instituted by an act of parliament the following year, with the mission to promote tolerance, social cohesion and intercultural understanding.9 9 Another significant step forward for Australian multiculturalism came in 1989, with the introduction of the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. This document expanded multiculturalism to include Anglo-Celtic and Aboriginal peoples, offering them access to cultural resources and equality appeals. The multicultural program, having emerged as a distinct policy entity by the early 1980s, expanded through this move, setting up the community consultation process that took place in the mid 1990s, whereby the Labour government sought to determine how best to provide services and expand equality through the program, particularly considering its expanded audience. In 1994 the Labour government struck a panel to conduct the Community Consultations on Access and Equity, which resulted in the release of a report in 1995 outlining the next evolution in Australian multiculturalism, including progressive anti-racism measures, strategies to combat labour market inequalities and new community access programs for underrepresented groups. Unfortunately, these "next steps" coincided with a change in elected government, and subsequently never made it past the planning stage. 1 0 0 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 61 Progressive steps towards equality between the mid 1980s and 1994 comparable to those made in Canada from 1992-1996 were undermined by the Howard administration in opposition and in power, with Howard's personal animosity to multiculturalism being a well-documented matter of public record. 1 0 1 Howard vehemently opposed multiculturalism during the 1980s, and made numerous anti-Asian remarks during the course of his early engagement with multiculturalism. Fundamentally, Howard was invested in the concept that a free market economy, influenced by Thatcher and Reagan's ideals of competition and wealth circulation, would provide a trickle down effect of profit that would create all the necessary social cohesion Australia required. Firmly invested in the "self-sufficiency" o f neo-liberal models, the Conservative administration under Howard's guidance, set about dismantling the multicultural programs that were in place prior to the 1996 election, beginning with the full-scale rejection of the 1995 report on recommended advancements for multiculturalism. Although in the 1980s Howard advocated for the total abandonment o f multiculturalism, but the time he came to power in the mid 1990s, he had figured out a way to make the concept work within the fiscally conservative strategy he had in mind. With the Canadian Conservatives demonstrating throughout the 1980s how well multiculturalism could be made to serve a Conservative financial agenda, Howard retreated from his early position on the abandonment of multiculturalism, and modified the program to suit his own agenda. Significantly, anti-racism and equality measures recommended in the 1995 report were never developed. In place of the 1995 report, the Howard administration set about bringing in its own agenda, which Peter Murphy, Bette O'Brien and Sophie Watson describe as a program of highlighting the "economic benefits of multiculturalism" also known as "productive diversity", beginning with the release of the 1999 New Agenda for Multicultural Australia. This document, and others of the period, emphasized the need for increasing education in Australia around the benefits o f multiculturalism, primarily in relation to the economy, but entirely failed to tackle matters of social inequality, discrimination in the labour market, interracial hostilities or systemic racism. Indeed, Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 62 rather than evolving to combat systemic racism, muiticulturalism under the Howard administration has become a prime example of systemic racism in action. The most recent report, entitled Multicultural Australia: United in Diversity from 2003, outlines four basic principles: 1 0 2 1. Responsibilities for all: Australians have a civic duty to support those basic structures and principles of Australian society which guarantee us our freedom and equality and enable diversity in our society. 2. Respect for each person: Subject to the law, all Australians have the right to express their own culture and beliefs and have a reciprocal obligation to respect the rights of others to do the same 3. Fairness for each person: A l l Australians are entitled to equality of treatment and opportunity. Social equity allows us all to contribute to the social, political and economic life of Australia... 4. Benefits for all: A l l Australians benefit from... the significant cultural, economic and social dividends arising from the diversity of our population. Most notable in this new policy is the entire lack of means or methods to address social inequality, which are exchanged for a host of references to individual responsibilities on behalf of individuals to support Australian ways of doing things and to not rock the boat. Rather than acting as a policy designed to promote diversity and freedoms, this is a policy that controls individual expressions of culture in such a way that there are no opportunities to redress inequalities, and no acknowledgment o f the value of difference beyond a fiscal interest. While Canadian muiticulturalism now talks about antiracism and equality of inclusion, Australian muiticulturalism still emphasizes the responsibilities of ethnically framed groups to integrate well into Australian society, the benefits of the policy (for historically dominant people and economic interests), and a language o f tolerance that is heavily dated in its approach to race and ethnic relations. The repeated election of conservative governments, as well as a swell in anti-Asian sentiment in the mid 1990s Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 63 and anti-Muslim sentiment since 9-11 has substantially weakened the policy, and kept it from fulfilling more advanced possibilities in equality rights that had emerged as foundational philosophies earlier in Australian multiculturalism's evolution. 1 0 3 2 . 5 . 2 Britain British multiculturalism is complex for two key reasons, firstly, there is a lack of cohesion around what exactly constitutes British multiculturalism because the policy is not one but many tiny regulations, predominantly regarding education; and secondly, a separation has evolved between multiculturalism and antiracism in the country's policies. 1 0 4 As Anne Phillips relates, the mid 1960s is the period in which multiculturalism and race relations strategies begin in Britain, however, "the subsequent evolution of multicultural policy was never codified in official statements, and many citizens would probably be surprised to discover the number of small accommodations..." 1 0 5 Phillips uses the term "multicultural drift" to describe this process - "a series o f smallish adjustments that added up to a quite substantial practice o f multiculturalism." However, while the accommodations for ethnically framed groups may have been numerous, the failure to codify the policy presents serious difficulties for those wishing to locate a specific government strategy for the purposes of review or reform. In this sense of policy mapping, British multiculturalism is more like an archipelago than a distinct land mass, meaning that it is difficult to speak to the policy as a whole. Despite these difficulties, one can identify a number of key legal moves around race relations that speak to British anti-racism ideas, and more broadly to British race relations in general. In this context, the lack of a formal multiculturalism policy can be seen to have created a heavy focus in Britain on notions of race as opposed to concepts of ethnicity. As Tariq Modood has argued, this has produced a heavy emphasis on "black versus white" relations, whereby Asian and Musl im concerns are subsumed in the discourses of righting colonial wrongs. 1 0 6 This situation has pitted anti-racism activists against those for whom the race discourse does not serve. Ironically, Muslim Asians are Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 64 currently the most disadvantaged group in Britain, and there is no concrete framework, either through anti-racism or the British model o f muiticulturalism, where their concerns can be solidly addressed. 1 0 7 In 1965 Britain passed the Race Relations Act, which established a number of Community Relations Councils that functioned primarily as information gathering, information dispensing bodies related to diversity concerns. 1 0 8 The act also prevented discrimination based on race. In 1968, the Race Relations Act was expanded under the Labour government to provide "protection against racism in the fields of employment, housing, and provision of a broad range of goods and services." 1 0 9 It also gave the Race Relations Board, which oversaw the act, permission to investigate racism proactively, rather than just retroactively, even in cases where it was necessary to bypass the Attorney General's Office. However, as Er ik Bleich points out, the act was not without issues. Much of the wording of the act was a result of negotiations between interested groups, and there were a large number of loopholes through which institutions could continue as they pleased. 1 1 0 The early 1970s in Britain saw a number of immigration restrictions introduced by the Conservative government, limiting the increase o f diversity. It was not until the reelection of a Labour administration in 1974 and the subsequent 1976 Race Relations Act that affirmative action policies were introduced (called positive action in Britain) and indirect discrimination protections were extended. In the period between the 1976 Race Relations Act and its next amendment, in 2001, numerous small steps were made towards equality, largely in the form of the small regulations Phillips refers to as "multicultural drift". This period also marks a substantial expansion in anti-racist academic and activist activity in Britain, despite the Conservative administration of the Thatcher and Major governments in the 1980s. Many of these occurred at local levels; as Bleich argues, most of the forward steps in this period were made by the judiciary and by local bureaucracies, with far less national-level government involvement. 1 1 1 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 65 A recent milestone during this period was the release of the Macpherson Report of 1999, recognizing the presence of institutional racism in Britain, and written in response to the killing of a black youth and the subsequent failed police investigation. Among its many recommendations, the Macpherson report recommended cultural sensitivity training and race consciousness in authoritative British institutions such as law enforcement and the education system. While hailed by many as a progressive step, the report was critiqued by some anti-racists for not going far enough, and by many on the right as a report catering to the "ethnic" vote . 1 1 2 In 2001, the latest update to the Race Relations Act came into force, which "strengthened the 1976 Act in two major ways: it extends protection against racial discrimination by public authorities, and it places a new, enforceable positive duty on public authorities." 1 1 3 However, these positive anti-racist steps have not been enough to stop a negative downslide in race relations in Britain. The 2001 amendments mark the last significant step forward, followed by a shift in direction marked by the strengthening of efforts to increase the "Britishness" o f citizens and residents in recent years in order to promote harmony. The post-911 period in Britain has seen a number of disquieting incidents, casting doubts about Britain's diversity management strategies - anti-racist, multicultural, educational and in terms of immigration. In 2004, a number of small towns experienced race riots, "where young Asians fought in the streets with white racists, and police and property were attacked." 1 1 4 Investigations into the causes of the riots revealed a disturbing degree of "social and residential segregation" 1 1 5 in labour market access, educational programs, residential patterns, social networks, and daily lives. This was described in the report as a situation where "many communities operate on the basis of separate l ives ." 1 1 6 The response to this finding was to compel citizenship applicants to pass a test on their knowledge of Britishness - not just history, but public culture as well. If one fails, one must undertake a course on the subject, including language testing, coming into effect in 2005. This same year four Muslim youth, all British citizens, killed 52 people on a London train in an act of terrorism inspired by Britain's involvement in Iraq. A s David Ley points out, the misdirected response was not to question foreign policy, racism in the British system or social segregation, but to question the place of Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 66 muiticulturalism. 1 1 7 According to Phillips, "Too much toleration of difference, it was suggested, was leaving young Muslims outside the mainstream of society, refusing all loyalties to Britain, available as terrorist fodder." 1 1 8 While race theory in academic circles is highly advanced in Britain, this has not had the strength of impact on muiticulturalism that it might have done, although it has significantly influenced the development of an antiracism strategy that is very strong. Unfortunately, in locating this emphasis outside muiticulturalism, muiticulturalism as a policy in Britain has remained largely celebratory, and has failed to achieve the maturity that comes with combining the two strategies. 1 1 9 Potentially, this has been a good thing for antiracism, but has not necessarily been good for muiticulturalism. Muiticulturalism in Britain manifests largely as a softer, more palatable version of antiracism - one that refers to attitude change and intercultural exchange rather than systemic discrimination and colonial power relationships. Unfortunately, the ways in which muiticulturalism has been used by successive governments in recent times has produced a sense of competition between the two policies. A s race relations in Britain come under increasing strain, muiticulturalism is seen by the left as something that is too weak to be anything other than a tool of the historically dominant group, and the historically dominant group feels that it has become too lenient in permitting muiticulturalism, and that avenues of modified assimilation should perhaps be pursued. Subsequently, British muiticulturalism is entering a difficult time - one that may soon see either the end or a complete overhaul of the entire concept. 2 . 5 . 3 The Netherlands Muiticulturalism in the Netherlands is a prime example of what happens when a policy with far reaching implications is put in place too quickly, without either the necessary foresight or the required supporting structures. Responding to a surge in asylum seekers in the 1980s, the Netherlands introduced a widespread muiticulturalism that included advanced levels of support for diverse groups, such as a separate Musl im school system, separate housing, media and cultural dialogues; 1 2 0 unfortunately, there Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 67 was little consultation from these groups on their needs, and the framework within the policy aimed to provide peaceful coexistence through carefully managed segregation. The result has been the most short-lived muiticulturalism project in the Western world and a disturbingly high level of inter-ethnic civil unrest within the Netherlands. This is exemplified by comments from Sniderman and Hagendoorn, who claim, "In the Netherlands, as much as can be done on behalf of muiticulturalism has been done." 1 2 1 Unfortunately, what appears not to have occurred to the Dutch until too late is that it is possible to do too much in terms o f managing the lives of ethnically framed people through policy, particularly when "what can be done" manifests as establishing an entire micro-community, strategically segregated and carefully managed, within the borders of the nation. Han Entzinger has categorized the Dutch diversity program into four distinct stages: avoidance (1950-1961); ambivalence (1961-1980); the Ethnic Minorities Policy (1980-1994); and the Integration Policy (1994 onwards). 1 2 2 To these four stages, one might add a fifth, developed in since 2004, which can be considered an all-out assimilation policy. In the post war years, the Netherlands admitted a small number of Moluccans - a group that had fallen under the Dutch colonial influence in Indonesia prior to independence, but were now somewhat unwelcome there due to their allegiance with the Dutch army. The Netherlands granted the Moluccans temporary residence, but there was an understanding on both sides that the situation was a temporary one. As a result of their colonial history, Moluccans were not considered in the same light as other immigrants, guest workers or refugees, and were housed in separate areas, with the provision of largely separate services. It was, for all intents and purposes, a holding pattern until such time as the Moluccans returned to Indonesia. However, in the 1960s and 1970s the diversity of the Netherlands increased, with guest workers arriving from Turkey, Morocco and Southern Europe. In addition, it became clear that the Moluccan population was becoming a permanent fixture in Dutch Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 68 society, to the dissatisfaction of both sides. In particular, Moluccan youth were particularly dissatisfied with the conditions under which they lived as half-citizens in sequestered spaces, culminating in the 1973 hijacking of a Dutch train by Moluccan youth. Severe labour market inequalities in this period, created by an influx of low skill workers in combination with the oil crisis, exacerbated differences between ethnic groups. Layoffs and high unemployment of guest workers and immigrants led to civil unrest. It became clear to the Dutch government that some form of official diversity strategy should be implemented. However, as far as the government was concerned, only "disadvantaged" groups, or groups to whom the Netherlands owed some form of colonial obligation, were included in the programs that were to come in the 1980s: Turkish immigrants, Moroccans and Tunisians (as one group), Surinamese, Dutch Antilleans, Moluccans, Southern Europeans, Gypsies and refugees. Chinese and Pakistani groups were excluded on the grounds that there were neither a colonial group nor a disadvantaged group, and as a result were unable to apply for resources under the Ethnic Minorities Po l i cy . 1 2 3 Multiculturalism in the Netherlands has always been about providing separate services for the separate needs of asylum seekers and immigrants, and more specifically, to those from nations to which the Dutch felt some form of colonial obligation or historical connection. 1 2 4 Although the Netherlands initially approached asylum seekers and immigrants as potentially temporary residents in the post-war period (there was a sense many may return home after a time), the government began to recognize that the situation of diversity was not only permanent, but also increasing. 1 2 5 To this end, the government committed to a study on diversity, released in 1979, and responded to the results o f the study in 1980. According to Entzinger, "This marked the beginning o f what became known as the Dutch ethnic minorities policy. Under this policy migrants were perceived in terms of their group membership and not primarily as individuals." 1 2 6 In 1983, the policy was formalized in parliament and became the official mechanism for handling diversity. The three objectives of the policy were: emancipation in a multicultural society; equality before the law; and the promotion of equal opportunity. 1 2 7 Unfortunately, although these foundational philosophies were laudable, the policy Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 69 manifestation was less so, largely due to an additional foundational philosophy that viewed high levels o f government involvement in the lives o f ethnically framed people (largely without stakeholder consultation) as a right of the historically dominant group. While voting rights and other benefits were expanded, there was also an exceedingly high level of involvement on behalf of the Dutch government about the level of cultural retention immigrants "ought" to have. In direct opposition to the laissez faire model they had previously had, the Dutch went to extreme lengths to manage the lives of those who fell under the scope of the multiculturalism policy, leaving these new residents little opportunity to integrate on their own terms. While the policy was designed to be empowering for asylum seekers and immigrants, it became a heavily parental project, full o f compulsory or near compulsory programs and behaviours for "ethnics," which simultaneously acted to maintain a highly bordered set of public spaces. In essence, the Netherlands typifies the type o f multiculturalism that happens "over there" but nowhere near the mainstream. With separate schooling, housing, community development projects, religious institutions, and media, the government funded micro-nations within the nation that had little interaction with the historically dominant group. Efforts at hybridizing the two were met with complaints that ethnically framed groups were taking over, and enough had been done for them already. Simultaneously, ethnically framed people continued to experience racism and exclusion, and had the perfect segregated enclave situation within which to locate others who were dissatisfied. This has unfortunately proven to be a highly successful breeding ground for fundamentalism, which in turn has permitted a rash of anti-gay, anti-Jewish sentiments to flourish - both things that the historically dominant group firmly locates as outside their 128 belief system. A strong example of this high-level government involvement is the connection between settlement and labour patterns. Asylum seekers were often forcibly located in housing projects in rural areas, in an attempt to spread out the population increase. However, there were fewer jobs available in these areas, mostly requiring little or no skills, which produced a deskilling for asylum seekers with university education and Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 70 created a situation were those who were located by the government in rural areas suffered for low wage positions, the exacerbation of poverty, and increased dependence on the welfare state, all of which led to civil unrest. 1 2 9 Also significant in the Dutch case is the manner in which the policy was introduced. According to Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn, "It is widely assumed that citizens know where they are on issues involving minorities and care deeply about what is done. Political leaders, in consequence, have to respond to their constituents views or risk defeat." However, they point out that in the Dutch case, "the government of the Netherlands did not commit itself to muiticulturalism because of electoral pressures from the majority. Politicians followed the advice o f policy advisors and leaders o f informed opinion, not public opinion, when they committed themselves to a policy of muiticulturalism. In a word, the politics of muiticulturalism has operated top down, not bottom up ." 1 3 0 This is very different than the case of Canadian muiticulturalism, which was the result of a nationwide consultation by a Royal Commission on the future of Canadian diversity. Over the decade following the initiation of the Ethnic Minorities Policy, the number of refugee and asylum groups multiplied, causing havoc in a system where resources were theoretically designated on a case-by-case basis to a cohesive social group. The Netherlands could not fund separate media outlets, housing, and schooling for all these different groups, nor did it seem that such a system was working well for those around whom the original policy had been designed. Based on the earlier system of pillarization, which had worked for the Dutch the previous century in regard to religious differences, the ethnic minorities policy rapidly began to show cracks from which it did not recover. As Joppke and Morawska relate, "State funding for ethnic minorities only helped feed a small elite of ethnic activists, along with infights and factionism, while doing little to improve the lives of ordinary immigrants." 1 3 1 B y the early 1990s, historically dominant groups were complaining that the Netherlands was becoming increasingly overwhelmed with asylum seekers and Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 71 immigrants - some legal and others not. The resulting economic and political pressure on the multiculturalism system, as well as a heightened lack of social cohesion, resulted in a large-scale redirection of the nation's policy goals. While this was taking place, in 1992, the government introduced dual citizenship, in the hopes of encouraging more people to commit to the Netherlands; however, this policy produced such a high number of ethnically framed people applying for citizenship, which members of historically dominant groups complained were not at all committed to the Netherlands but were taking advantage of increased citizenship rights at no personal cost. Due to the political pressures of this position the program was discontinued in 1997. 1 3 2 Changes in government in the mid 1990s led to broad-spectrum changes in multiculturalism, in favour of emphasis on integration, compulsory language training in Dutch, and other measures away from the original policy. In 1998, the Dutch government passed the Law on the Civic Integration of Newcomers, which imposed 600 hours of mandatory language classes and cultural awareness testing on all new non-European Union immigrants. The new direction for the policy, marked by the Civic Integration L a w o f 1998, has expanded in force, fed by a number of current events. Since 2001, multiculturalism in the Netherlands has become a political firestorm, pitting the Dutch self-identification as a nation of tolerance against the huge ethno-cultural rifts that have opened up over the past two decades, particularly in the context of Muslim settlement. Political responses to the events surrounding September 11 t h , the 2004 murder of controversial filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (great grandnephew of the famous Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh) by a Muslim youth, and a number of race protests/riots in recent years have all left the policy in tatters. Throughout this period, there has been increasing support for the far right in political elections, most notably with the election of Pirn Fortuyn in 2002 (who was subsequently murdered) and the ongoing success of his party in recent elections. Under this right-leaning leadership, the Ethnic Minorities Policy, which had yielded to the integration policies of the 1990s, shifted yet again to become a whole-scale assimilationist policy by 2003 that immigrants and ethnically framed groups not only Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 7 72 have to pay for themselves, but which also provides legal grounds for deportation in cases of failure. Pim Fortuyn campaigned on a "zero-immigration" platform, which has in part been realized. Asylum regulations have been tightened dramatically, with airline carriers being held responsible for false or failed identification of passengers, rapid procedural processing with no chance of appeal, and the expulsion of "non-expellable" asylum seekers from retention centres. 1 3 3 There is currently a zero-immigrant policy for workers, and only highly skilled workers are permitted entry under a strict guest worker program with forced return migration at the end of the work per iod. 1 3 4 Those who come in under family reunification, refugee or other status, or who are currently residing non-citizens are compelled to pay for courses in Dutch language and culture which are compulsory not only in attendance but also in terms of academic success. In the cases o f non-refugee immigrants, tests must be paid for and taken online in advance of entry to the country. Renewal of any visas or permits once in the country are dependent on passing exams within the country, all o f which are funded by the immigrant. 1 3 5 There has even been some government effort since 2005 to make it illegal to speak any language other than Dutch in public spaces in the Netherlands. 1 3 6 In essence, it is now a criminal offence worthy o f expulsion i f one cannot afford to be Dutchified, or i f one pays and fails to become Dutch enough. 1 3 7 It appears that in the case of the Netherlands, a failed muiticulturalism has not only meant the end of the policy, but has unleashed its philosophical antithesis in force. Indeed, it has even become politically incorrect in the Netherlands to refer to muiticulturalism as having any success at a l l . 1 3 8 2.5.4 Sweden The trajectory of Swedish muiticulturalism has, in many regards, been ahead of its time both in implementation and collapse. Introduced in 1975, Swedish muiticulturalism was part of a package of anti-racist principles, including (among other social benefits) broad-spectrum voting, welfare, and immigration rights. 1 3 9 These policies earned Sweden a glowing reputation as a haven for social justice. However, open asylum and Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 73 immigration policies proved to be a serious challenge to anti-racist ideals by the late 1980s. 1 4 0 The influx of people from Eastern Europe and Muslim nations in the Middle East and Northern Africa created a backlash from Swedes who felt their traditional way of life was about to be lost . 1 4 1 Unfortunately, rather than being able to strike a balance between immigration numbers and multicultural anti-racist principles, successive Swedish governments lost control of the situation, and earlier commitments to muiticulturalism collapsed into race-based restrictions on immigration, asylum, cultural practice and capacity to expect equal protection from the l a w . 1 4 2 Sweden's initial muiticulturalism program, introduced in 1975 and named the Immigrant and Minority Policy, was founded on three key principles: equality, freedom of choice and partnership. As Joppke and Morawska relate, "the distinctly multicultural element in this (policy) was freedom of choice; it became enshrined in a new paragraph in the constitution, which mandated the state to protect and further the cultural identity of Sweden's ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities." 1 4 3 In keeping with what was to become a common trend in European multiculturalisms and in contrast to Canadian and Australian models, Sweden interpreted freedom of choice as cultural retention through separate services, including mother-tongue education, "cultural activities", and segregated media sources such as radio, television and newspapers. In general, Sweden began enabling ethnically framed groups to occupy a separate socio-cultural space in the nation, rather than adapting mainstream Swedish media outlets, schools and public spaces to include diverse groups. In general, the early years of the policy were widely hailed as progressive, with Sweden leading the way in willingness to address concepts such as anti-racism and equal rights packages for non-citizen residents. However, shifts in the types of non-citizens in residence, labour market trends and the legal language of inclusion brought changes to the policy in the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of labour market shifts, post-war economic expansion in Sweden, which produced a labour shortage and attracting immigrant labour, yielded to an economic Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 74 downturn in the early 1970s, which saw native Swedish workers placed in competition with immigrant workers for jobs. In combination with this situation, the largest numbers of immigrants to Sweden during the 1970s were refuges from Chile, Poland and Turkey, while a general shift can be seen in remaining immigrant numbers away from skilled workers and towards family reunification. 1 4 4 Identifying the increasing diversity of its population, Sweden adopted its Immigrant and Minority Policy at the very cusp of a swell of changes in the diversity of its population. According to Pieter Bevelander of the International Migration and Ethnic Relations Centre in Sweden, from the 1970s to the 1990s, Sweden witnessed an increasingly non-Nordic immigrant population, coming from farther and more "foreign" nations, which Beverlander supports with statistical data from Sweden's government sources. "In the 1980s, the lion's share of this new immigration came from Chile, Ethiopia, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. Individuals from Iraq, former Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe countries dominated the 1990s." 1 4 5 In accordance with Swedish beliefs about the right to work and civil participation, Sweden rejected the idea of a guest worker program in the 1970s, providing local voting rights, welfare rights and other significant benefits to non-citizen workers and immigrants. This worked well during times of economic boom, when there was work available; however, in times of economic downturn, such as the early 1970s and 1990s, produced low employment rates for immigrants compared to those who were from Nordic backgrounds, both Swedish-born and naturalized immigrants from other Scandinavian nations. Although Swedish welfare conditions permitted immigrants and asylum seekers to access assistance, the amount they received was (and remains) proportional to their earnings, meaning that immigrants who consistently had lower access to labour market inclusion had correspondingly lower rates of welfare assistance, creating a cycle of racialized poverty. 1 4 6 Asylum regulations during this period also created problems o f integration. Asylum seekers were admitted in large numbers, owning in part to Sweden's willingness to accept refugees on more open conditions than other nations; for example, Sweden Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 75 accepted those whom Canada might have rejected as economic refugees - those fleeing war zones, extreme poverty or countries with environmental catastrophes such as drought. In the 1980s Sweden reorganized its refugee policy to create reception centres where asylum seekers were housed in camps while awaiting legal status to stay and work, at which point they were admitted into specific locations that the government had deemed to be "municipalities suitable for the integration of refugees." 1 4 7 Again, following the trend of cultural retention through ethnic exclusion or segregation, these asylum seekers were contained in specific neighbourhoods, and although given rights to work after four months, the asylum seekers found it extremely difficult to secure trainee places due to competition from native Swedes. Despite a remarkable willingness to admit asylum seekers during the 1980s and early 1990s, Sweden was il l prepared to meet the needs o f such a population, and the muiticulturalism program it had in place served to facilitate greater exclusion from mainstream access to the labour market and civic participation under the auspices of fostering cultural retention. The combination of dramatically increasing diversity in the 1980s, economic downturn in the 1990s and a muiticulturalism that was ill equipped to promote integration caused a dramatic shift in policy direction in the 1990s, driven by both public and political discontent. Due to a technical legal definition around minority status and citizenship, the Immigrant and Minority Policy was renamed the Immigrant Policy in the mid 1980s, although by this time, as Joppke and Morawska observe, "most newcomers were no longer immigrants originating from a few Nordic or southern European countries, but refugees originating from all corners of the globe." 1 4 8 However, it was not until the mid 1990s that major changes to the policy began to take place. In an attempt to combat the surge in racist violence and anti-immigrant sentiment, the Social Democratic government established an Integration policy and Integration Board in 1996/97, along with an accompanying budget to assist in eliminating racism and fostering integration. 1 4 9 Unfortunately, these policy decisions were poorly designed and even more poorly administered, subsequently proving unsuccessful in their aims to reduce racism and increase integration. Leadership for the new Integration Board and its department was done by political appointment, and suffered from a number of inexperienced but well-Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 76 meaning directors who spent significant amounts o f money on programs that failed to achieve their aims. 1 5 0 According to Dennis Nordin, "Appointments to lead the Integration Office resulted more as rewards to good Social Democrats than as culminations of searches after the most competent candidates." 1 5 1 This resulted in wasted fiscal expenditures that did little to pacify the increasingly anti-immigrant sentiment vocalized by some members of the Swedish population. When the most major of these collapsed programs was investigated, it was found that recipients o f the proposed services had not been consulted on their needs, the services development or the manner o f its delivery, resulting in a highly expensive program that gave nobody what they needed. 1 5 2 The shift from the Immigrant Policy to the Integration Policy is best characterized by a deeper shift in what was expected of non-Nordic ethnically framed groups in Sweden. According to Joppke and Morawska, the new policy emerged "against the backdrop o f skyrocketing unemployment rates for immigrants and deepening ethnic cleavages as well as a general questioning of welfarism and retreat of central state planning." 1 5 3 Joppke and Morawska observe, "While the new policy rhetorically sticks to the 1975 framework of equality, freedom of choice and cooperation (partnership), the multicultural thrust of the original policy has all but disappeared." As with Nordin and Beverlander, Joppke and Morawska identify the fingerprints of an assimilationist discourse "coloured by a neoliberal discourse of self-sufficiency" whereby immigrants are expected to acquire the skills they need on their own to function in Swedish society, and the principle of freedom of choice is reinterpreted to mean non-activity on the part o f the state. In effect, multiculturalism programs to promote an easier transition to the Swedish nation (albeit conceptualized and administered in a segregated way) have now been transformed to a much-reduced series o f "self-help" tools available to immigrants who choose to avail themselves of these resources. B y 2000, when the U N reviewed Sweden's progress in its commitments to end racial discrimination, the country was soundly dressed down for failing to quell the rampant spread o f racism, de facto racially segregated housing, increasing neo-Nazi related violence, and for being unable to ensure equal access to legal protection for Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 77 immigrant groups. 1 5 4 These results shocked many Swedes, and have left successive governments attempting to cope with the recommendations while balancing the weight of three decades of asylum seekers against the interests of the historically dominant group -none of which are overly satisfied with the results. 1 5 5 While Sweden began with high levels of commitment to anti-racist principles, and in the 1970s implemented policies that were ahead of those many nations have today, this commitment could not withstand the test of mass immigration. Although Swedes were enthusiastic about embracing diversity initially as part of a national belief in deep equality, they were far from willing to feel overwhelmed by it, and were unable to conceptualize in a manner that brought diversity from the margins to the mainstream - an important lesson on the security of muiticulturalism when the pressure it places on the system is substantial rather than merely symbolic. 2.6 Comparat ive Evolutions In terms of the historical trajectory of state-sponsored multiculturalisms, Canada appeared first on the scene in 1971, followed by Australia in 1973 (or 1978, when the policy was officially approved) and Sweden in 1975. The British policy was established slowly, through small regulations and attitudinal approaches to governance, and the Dutch policy was a relative latecomer, not appearing in a concrete way until the mid 1980s, although plurality was certainly a condition of national social geography in the Netherlands prior to the emergence of official muiticulturalism. However, while late to implement its policy, the Netherlands flung itself into the concept in force and, metaphorically speaking, over-calculated, lost its balance and has been in steady collapse since the mid 1990s. Sweden's policy, although initially very strong, went into similar decline in this period, and for similar reasons - namely, the pressure placed on the sensibilities of the historically dominant group by a substantial influx of asylum seekers from Muslim and Eastern European nations, which prompted a protective response from Swedes and the Dutch around traditional values and national identities including shifts to the political right (a common trend in both voting practices and party positions Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 78 experienced by the Netherlands, Britain and Australia in the 1990s). Around the same time that the Dutch and Swedish polices began to falter, Australia began to scale back the force and scope of its policy to match the expectations of a consistently conservative national voting population - one which repeatedly emphasized the desire to protect the interests of "white Australia" from Asian and Musl im immigrants. Britain, the latest nation to face serious challenges to its policy, has struggled with issues of social integration (segregation) exacerbated by its foreign policy and a lingering colonial legacy than manifests in ongoing immigration from Commonwealth countries in high numbers. In this climate of short-lived experimental multiculturalism, Canada has the longest continually running state-sponsored policy, and is the lone holdout in stating emphatically that it is neither scaling back nor doubting the underlying philosophy of its version of multiculturalism. While the trajectory of multiculturalism in other nations may lead one to assume, as Joppke and Morawska have done, that the policy is doomed to end in failure, nothing in Canada's past or present indicates that this wil l be the case here. Indeed, in each successive decade, the scope, public support, government support, and positive results of Canadian multiculturalism has grown, evidenced most clearly by the absence of major interracial violence, riots, and terrorist acts that have occurred in these other nations. While Canadian multiculturalism remains far from an ideal system, it must be achieving something through its policy decisions that is clearly not happening in these other countries. This does not make Canada immune from these acts of violence, but it does indicate that immigration is translating well into social integration, as opposed to the segregation and isolation identified as persistent and substantial problems in these other nations. 1 5 6 2.7 A S e p a r a t e P e a c e ? I n t e g r a t i o n v e r s u s S e g r e g a t i o n i n P o l i c y It is important to contrast what is meant by multiculturalism in each of these countries - Britain, Australia, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands. Although the term may be the same, closer examination reveals that there are startling differences in the Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 79 policies, not the least of which is the target audience. Canada and Australia have multicultural policies that extend (at least in intent i f not fully in manifestation) to all citizens and residents; alternatively, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have multicultural policies that refer specifically, and exclusively, to immigrant ethnic minority groups 1 5 7 (and in the case of the Netherlands, only to certain "qualifying" ethnicities). 1 5 8 This difference in approaches raises the question of whether muiticulturalism's foundational philosophy in the modern era is about enabling the integration of ethnically framed groups as a central, equal part of the nation, or i f it is designed to create spaces for ethnic minority cultures to retain their practices in isolation? In essence, i f the ultimate goal is peaceful coexistence, is muiticulturalism about creating a nation where everyone lives together, or one where everyone lives a "safe" distance apart? Despite some similarities, each form of state-sponsored muiticulturalism has emerged predominantly as its own unique policy. Unlike Canada and Australia, where muiticulturalism is intended to be for all members of society, the policy in European countries (Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands) is directly exclusively at immigrant ethnic minority groups - a decision irrevocably casting the policy as a diversity management strategy that draws firm lines in the sand between "traditional" dominant ethno-cultural groups in the nation, and "newcomer" ethno-cultural immigrant groups. In analyzing the current move away from muiticulturalism towards assimilation in these European nations, Joppke and Morawska contend that this division of the policy "makes official muiticulturalism more vulnerable here than in Canada or Austral ia ." 1 5 9 Given the recent moves to dismantle or severely limit muiticulturalism in these European nations, contemporary developments would seem to support Joppke and Morawska's theory. However, Australia, too, is minimizing its multicultural policy. Given that Canada is the only nation that appears not to be abandoning muiticulturalism (despite Joppke and Morawska's unsupported contention 1 6 0, refuted by K y m l i c k a , 1 6 1 that Canada is also heading away from the policy), there is likely a more complex explanation. This explanation begins with the question of the policy's intention: is it designed to manage Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 80 diversity by enabling spaces of isolation where ethno-cultural groups can retain whatever practices they chose, or is it about modifying the national mainstream to admit plurality? There are several difficulties with using multiculturalism to create/manage ethnic communities that are seen to be distinct from the mainstream. Firstly, as Steven Vertovec points out, the level o f diversity in Britain these days vastly exceeds the notion of a measurable number o f clearly defined ethnic groups, and is complicated by intermarriage, second and third generation citizens, return migration, a range in size of communities, and vastly more source nations for immigrants. 1 6 2 Vertovec convincingly argues that because of the policy's dependence on reading of diversity as multiple clearly defined ethnic groups of a certain size, British multiculturalism has been slow to adapt to this age of super-diversity. In Vertovec's opinion, British multiculturalism must reconsider how it approaches the policy entirely, and must account for hybridity, fluidity and flexible belonging across multiple groups simultaneously. Vertovec's assessment points to a second difficulty in the idea o f multiculturalism for immigrant ethnic groups only. This type of policy leaves the children of parents on either side of the multicultural line in an impossible position - part British, part multicultural - which points to a serious flaw, and exposes the racialization of the process. In this case, is the child considered British, or multicultural British? Because of the way the division has been constructed (with multiculturalism for immigrant ethnic groups only), with both indicating one type of national citizenship and belonging over the other, there can only be one answer. Under the current system, i f a child has two immigrant ethnic group parents, the answer is clearly multicultural British. But i f a child has one white British parent and one Indian British parent, and grows up in a household that has fish and chips on Fridays, and paneer on Saturdays, does that make the child multicultural British? The logic of this division upon close examination becomes disturbingly similar to the colonial language of the "one drop" rule. Not only does the idea of a division between multicultural and British communities suggest a problematically bordered version of national inclusion 1 6 3 , but it also fails to stand up under scrutiny in the increasing complexity of a globalizing, hybridizing w o r l d . 1 6 4 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 81 A third difficulty with bordered muiticulturalism, where "ethnic" immigrants and Europeans line up on opposite sides of the line, is the matter of centrality. I f one foundational philosophy of muiticulturalism is to forward equal participation, or at the very least to facilitate inclusion, models that enable cultural silos to develop are almost certain to fail to achieve this aim. Not only are barriers of access/belonging created between groups (with many citizens caught uncomfortably on the dividing line), but these barriers also are generally erected around a central dominant culture while others are pushed to the margins, where resources and access to the labour market are scarce. When this occurs, muiticulturalism fosters cultural pursuits as a distraction from central engagement, one that creates a false sense of community strength and cohesiveness that works to obscure a disempowering lack of access to centrality. This is particularly acute in the Swedish and Dutch cases. In many ways, European muiticulturalism versions of the policy envision ethnically framed groups not only as having distinct practices, but also as occupying clearly different national, geographical and political spaces. 1 6 5 In a foundational policy philosophy where muiticulturalism is really about establishing multiple communities, distinctly differentiated, whose boundaries are politically and socially pol iced, 1 6 6 national belonging and multicultural belonging operate as mutually exclusive spheres of identity. Where the difficulty lies with this explanation, however, is in the fact that this treatment of ethnically framed people is not limited to those multiculturalisms that direct themselves exclusively towards an ethnically framed audience; national handling of a policy for all citizens regardless of immigrant status can have the same effect, despite wording in the policy to the contrary. Arguably, this isolation (caused by a bordered national belonging) is also the case in Australia currently, where strong anti-immigrant, anti-ethnic minority sentiments have occupied political discourse and have modified the foundational philosophy of the policy in the direction of a more assimilationist model for over a decade. 1 6 7 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 82 It is interesting that Canada and Australia have both opted for multicultural policies that are directed (theoretically) equally towards all citizens. This could be due to the fact that this was Canada's vision of the policy, and Australia followed it closely, both in timeline and in design; later European adaptations of multiculturalism may reflect a new wave of thinking about the policy specific to the European context. Alternatively, as settler societies, Canada and Australia may have had great difficulty establishing a policy designed for immigrants only, because it would have required a very obvious racialization of who the policy included, as well as a surgical division of the idea of "immigrant". I f this is the case, the British and Dutch rejection o f multiculturalism for all citizens may rest on a problematic, unresolved colonial legacy of conquerors and conquered that the policy simultaneously relies on for definition and acts to obscure in practice. A n ongoing critique of policies in both these nations is the lack of recognition for the history that has shaped migration, settlement and economic patterns. 1 6 8 In contrast to the notion of multiculturalism as a policy for ethnically framed immigrants only, Canadian multiculturalism presents itself as a model where the nation itself is the broadest community, to which all citizens equally belong, and under this umbrella they may practice cultures of their choosing. While in the policy's early years this may have been little more than rhetoric to disguise what was actually multiculturalism for non-Anglo and Francophone Canadian ethnic populations (as Kobayashi 1 6 9 , Bissoondath 1 7 0 and Bannerji 1 7 1 all independently suggest), there is strong evidence that this is no longer the case. In recent years the celebration of Anglo-Irish culture as an ethnic group has become a tradition in Vancouver with the Celtic Festival, a four day event complete with all the soft culture identifiers Hage critiques as markers o f ethnicity appreciated by a historically dominant culture about "ethnic" groups 1 7 2 -distinct foods, music, dance, parades, non-national language use, and, culturally appropriate to British Isles culture, copious amounts of rain. While this can by no means be taken as a sign that generations of ethno-cultural and racial differentiation between historically dominant and ethnically framed groups has been erased, this development does indicate that "ethnic" celebration has come to include Anglo-European groups in a way that it hasn't in the past, and in a manner consistent with the idea of one Canada Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 83 offering the choice of muiticulturalism to everyone equally. It might be considered one tiny but important step forward. Channel M (Multi-vision Television) is another excellent example of this idea at work - a multilingual, hybridity-embracing, gender inclusive station that actively strives to realize the principles of Canadian muiticulturalism through programming. These two instances indicate positive, real world actualizations of the philosophy that muiticulturalism in Canada is intended for, and actively applies to, all Canadians. Amongst those nations that have adopted muiticulturalism, there are substantial differences of approach and practice in the various policies. In some ways, it is almost misleading to refer to them all by the same name. Although all policies take as a foundational philosophy the belief that ethnic groups should be able to retain their right to cultural practice, in Europe the boundaries of this concept extend only around ethnically framed people, whereas in Canada and Australia, they (theoretically) are drawn overtop the geographic borders of the nation and include everyone. This division in European countries begs the question of whether muiticulturalism is a policy designed to permit ethnically framed people to formulate cultural groups in isolation from the mainstream, where they exist in peacefully segregated spaces. Unfortunately, as recent events in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands show, the effects of this isolation are neither peaceful nor beneficial. The alternative to this bordered muiticulturalism is the Canadian model, founded on the idea that muiticulturalism is designed to foster equality by extending the same rights to ethno-cultural practice, belonging and mainstream identity to ethnically framed people that historically dominant groups enjoy. While this idea is still in its development stage, it has sent Canada strongly in a different direction than the European multiculturalisms that came after. Arguably, Australia, too, was headed in this direction, but has slowed in its pace and has begun to reverse its steps back towards the European model (which may eventually result in a full-scale abandonment of the policy altogether). In answer to the question of whether muiticulturalism is about living apart or living together in the same country, Canadian muiticulturalism comes down firmly on the side of the latter, which places the policy in a far better position to respond to, and incorporate, the type of heightened super-diversity that Vertovec claims is poised to Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 84 challenge the British model. This does not mean that Canadian muiticulturalism precludes the formulation of ethnic groups, or their right to develop communities and practices that are, in some senses, isolated; what it offers is the choice. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 85 Endnotes: Palmer, Howard. 1976. "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century." In Multiculturalism as State Policy: Conference Report on the Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism. Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, p 81-118. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, p. 110 4 8 Qadeer, Mohammad. 2003 "Ethnic Segregation in a Multicultural City: The case of Toronto, Canada." C E R I S W P #28, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS) , Toronto. 4 9 Mooers, Colin. 2005. "Multiculturalism and citizenship: Some theoretical reflections" Working paper #37. Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS) , Toronto. 5 0 Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The dark side of the nation: Essay on multiculturalism, nationalism and gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. 5 1 Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto: Nelson Press. 5 2 Anthias, Floya and Nira Yuval-Davis. 1992. Racialized Boudaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and the Anti-racist Struggle. London: Routledge Press. 5 3 Hage, Ghassan. 1998. White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale: Pluto Press. 5 4 Kobayashi, Audrey. 2005. "Employment Equity in Canada: The Paradox of Tolerance and Denial" In Possibilities and Limitations: Multicultural Policies and Programs in Canada. Carl James, ed. p. 154-161. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. 55 Available at 5 6 For evidence of this regarding Canada, see: Creese, Gillian and Edith Ngene Kambere. 2002. "What Colour is Your English?" R I I M W P 02-20, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Creese, Gillian. 2005. "Negotiating Belonging: Bordered Spaces and Imagined Communities in Vancouver, British Columbia" R I I M W P 05-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Pendakur, Krishna, and Ravi Pendakur. 2005. "Ethnic identity and the labour market." Working paper # 05-10, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 5 7 Bissoondath, Nei l . 1994. Selling illusions: The cult of multiculturalism. Toronto: Penguin. 58 Hage, Ghassan. 1998. White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale: Pluto Press. 5 9 Mackey, Eva. 2004. The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 6 0 Joppke, Christian and Ewa Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 6 1 Mazurek, Kas. 1992. "Defusing a Radical Social Policy" In 20 Years of Multiculturalism: Successes and Failures. Stella Hrynuik ed., p. 17-28. Winnipeg: St. John's College Press, p.20 6 2 ibid. p. 21 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 86 6 3 Cohen, Joshua, Matthew Howard and Martha Nussbaum (eds). 1999. Is Muiticulturalism Bad for Women? Susan Moller Okin with Respondents. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 6 4 Bannerji, Himani (ed.) 1993. Returning the Gaze: Essays on Racism, Feminism and Politics. Toronto: Sister Vision Press. 6 5 Deckha, Maneesha. 2006. "Gender, Difference, and Anti-Essentialism: Towards a Feminist Response to Cultural Claims in Law" In Diversity and Equality: The Changing Framework of Freedom in Canada. Avigail Eisenberg (ed). p. 114-133. Vancouver: U B C Press. 6 6 Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliot. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Muiticulturalism in Canada (second edition). Toronto: Nelson Press. 6 7 Razack, Sherene. 1998. Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms. Toronto: Toronto University Press. 6 8 Taylor, Charles. 1994 "The Politics of Recognition" In Muiticulturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Amy Gutmann (ed). p.25-73. Princeton; Princeton University Press, p.52 6 9 Ibid, p.60 7 0 Ibid. p. 59 7 1 Ibid, p.61 7 2 Ibid. p.68 7 3 Ibid. p.68 7 4 Ley, David. 2005. "Post-multiculturalism?" Working paper # 05-18, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 7 5 Mahtani, Minelle and Alison Mountz. 2002. "Immigration to British Columbia: Media Representation and Public Opinion" R I I M W P 02-15, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Dunn, Kevin and Minelle Mahtani. 2001. " 'Adjusting the Colour Bar ' : Media Representations of Ethnic Minorities under Australian and Canadian Muiticulturalism" R I I M W P 01-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 7 6 Ley, David. 2007. "Muiticulturalism: A Canadian Defense" R I I M W P 07-04, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 7 7 Sandercock, Leonie, Leslie Dickout, Tanya Winkler. 2004. "The Quest for an Inclusive City: A n Exploration of Sri Lankan Tamil Experiences of Integration in Toronto and Vancouver" R I I M W P 04-12, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 7 8 Annick Germain (1997, 2000) from Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. "Rethinking Muiticulturalism for the 21 s t Century" R I I M W P 03-14, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 7 9 Edgington, David W. and Thomas A . Hutton. 2002. "Muiticulturalism and Local Government in Greater Vancouver" R I I M W P 02-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 8 0 Hiebert, Daniel. 2005. "Migration and the Demographic Transformation of Canadian cities: the social geography of Canada's major metropolitan centres in 2017." Working paper # 05-14, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 87 8 1 Black, Jerome. 1997. "Politics and the Study of Citizenship and Diversity" Working Paper. Immigration et metropoles, Montreal. 8 2 Simard, Carolle. 2001. " L a representation des groupes ethniques et des minorities visibles au niveau municipal: candidats et elus" TM working paper Domain 5, Immigration et metropoles. Montreal. 8 3 Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. "Rethinking Multiculturalism for the 21 s t Century" R I I M W P 03-14, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 84 Saloojee, Anver. 2005. "Social Inclusion, Anti-racism and Democratic Citizenship" CERIS Policy Paper #14, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Toronto. 8 5 Qadeer, Mohammad. 2003 "Ethnic Segregation in a Multicultural City: The case of Toronto, Canada." CERIS W P #28, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS) , Toronto. 8 6 Doucet, Michael J. 2001. "The Anatomy of A n Urban Legend: Toronto's Multicultural Reputation" CERIS W P #16, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Toronto. 8 7 ibid 8 8 Troper, Harold. 2000. "History of Immigration since the Second World War: From Toronto 'The Good ' to Toronto 'The World in a Ci ty ' " C E R I S W P #12, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Toronto. 8 9 Mahtani, Minelle and Alison Mountz. 2002. "Immigration to British Columbia: Media Representation and Public Opinion" R I I M W P 02-15, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver; Dunn, Kevin and Minelle Mahtani. 2001. " 'Adjusting the Colour Bar ' : Media Representations of Ethnic Minorities under Australian and Canadian Multiculturalism" R I I M W P 01-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 9 0 Hiebert, Daniel, Jock Collins, Paul Spoonley. 2003. "Uneven Globalization: Neoliberal Regimes, Immigration and Multiculturalism in Australia, Canada and New Zealand." R I I M W P 03-05 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 9 1 Hiebert, Daniel. 2003."Are Immigrants Welcome? Introducing the Vancouver Community Studies Survey" R I I M W P 03-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 92 Pendakur, Krishna. 2005. "Visible minorities in Canada's workplaces: A perspective on the 2017 projection." Working paper # 05-11, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 9 3 Lauren Hunter. (In Press) "Surveying Multiculturalism Research: A n Annotated Bibliography of Metropolis Working Papers (1996-2007)" Working Paper, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 9 4 Creese, Gillian and Robyn Dowling. 2001. "Gendering Immigration: The Experience of Women in Sydney and Vancouver" R I I M W P 01-04, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 9 5 Creese, Gillian and Edith Ngene Kambere. 2002. "What Colour is Your English?" RTTM W P 02-20, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 88 Vancouver; Creese, Gillian. 2005. "Negotiating Belonging: Bordered Spaces and Imagined Communities in Vancouver, British Columbia" R I I M W P 05-06, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver 9 6 Inglis, Christine. 2006. "International Approaches to Integration: Australia" Canadian Diversity vol. 5:1 Winter 2006. p. 14 9 7 ibid. p. 14 9 8 ibid. p. 14 9 9 Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. "Fact Sheet: The Evolution of Australia's Multicultural Policy" Available at http :// Accessed June 2007. 1 0 0 Theophanous, Theo. 1995. Understanding Muiticulturalism and Australian Identity. Melbourne: El ikia Books. P. 180-184 1 0 1 Theophanous, Theo. 1995. Understanding Muiticulturalism and Australian Identity. Melbourne: El ikia Books. 102 Quoted from the Report in Inglis, Christine. 2006. "International Approaches to Integration: Australia" Canadian Diversity vol. 5:1 Winter 2006. p. 15 103 MacLeod, Celeste Lipow. 2006. Multiethnic Australia: Its History and Future. London: MacFarland and Co. Inc. Publishers. 1 0 4 Rattansi, Ali.1992. "Changing the Subject? Racism, Culture and Education" In 'Race', Culture and Difference. Donald, James and A l i Rattansi (eds). P. 11-35. London: Sage Publications. 1 0 5 Phillips, Anne. 2007. Muiticulturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.4 1 0 6 Modood, Tariq. 1992. "British Muslims and the Rushdie Affair" in Race', Culture and Difference. Donald, James and A l i Rattansi (eds). P.260-277. London: Sage Publications. 1 0 7 Phillips, Anne. 2007. Muiticulturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.56 108 Anthias, Floya and Nira Yuval-Davis. 1992. RacializedBoudaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and the Anti-racist Struggle. London: Routledge Press.p. 162-163 1 0 9 Bleich, Erik. 2003. Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.63 1 1 0 ibid. p.64 1 1 1 ibid. p. 107-111 1 1 2 Anthias, Floya and Cathie Lloyd (eds). 2001. Rethinking Anti-racisms: From theory to practice. London: Routledge Press, p.9-11 113 Abbas, Tahir (ed). 2005. Muslim Britain: Communities Under Pressure. London: Zed Books. P.40 1 1 4 Phillips, Anne. 2007. Muiticulturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.5 1 1 5 ibid. p.5 1 1 6 ibid. p.5 1 1 7 Ley, David. 2005. "Post-multiculturalism?" Working paper #05-18, Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 89 1 1 8 Phillips, Anne. 2007. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.6 1 1 9 Anthias, Floya and Cathie Lloyd (eds). 2001. Rethinking Anti-racisms: From theory to practice. London: Routledge Press. "Introduction" 1 2 0 Sniderman, Paul and Louk Hagendoorn. 2007. When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 18 1 2 1 ibid. p. 15 1 2 2 Entzinger, Han. 2001. "Towards a Model of Incorporation: The Netherlands" in Ethnic Minorities and Inter-Ethnic Relations in Context: A Dutch-Hungarian comparison. Phalet, Karen and Antal Orkeny (eds). P.321-347. Aldershot: Ashgate. 1 2 3 Joppke, Christian and Ewa Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 14 1 2 4 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall o f Multiculturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Christian Joppke and E w a Morawska (eds). p. 59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan 1 2 5 Sniderman, Paul and Louk Hagendoorn. 2007. When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1 2 6 ibid, p.62 1 2 7 ibid, p.63 1 2 8 Resch, Marc. 2004. Only in Holland: Only the Dutch: An in-depth look into the culture of Holland and its people. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers. 1 2 9 Musterd, Sako. 2001. "Immigration and Ethnic Segregation in the Netherlands" in Ethnic Minorities and Inter-Ethnic Relations in Context: A Dutch-Hungarian comparison. Phalet, Karen and Antal Orkeny (eds). P.287-303. Aldershot: Ashgate. 1 2 9 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall o f Multiculturalism: The Case 1 3 0 Sniderman, Paul and Louk Hagendoorn. 2007. When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 135-136 1 3 1 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p. 14 1 3 2 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (eds). p. 59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan 133 Veit Bader, 2005. Dutch Nightmare? The End of Multiculturalism?" Canadian Diversity - Midticultural Futures Issue, vol 4:1, Winter 2005, p.9 1 3 4 ibid, p.9 1 3 5 Penninx, Rinus. "The Vicissitudes of Dutch Integration Policies." Canadian Diversity vol. 5:1, Winter 2005. p.61 1 3 6 Phillips, Anne. 2007. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.8 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 90 1 3 7 Veit Bader, 2005. Dutch Nightmare? The End of Multiculturalism?" Canadian Diversity - Multicultural Futures Issue, vol 4:1, Winter 2005, p.9 1 3 8 Penninx, Rinus. "The Vicissitudes of Dutch Integration Policies." Canadian Diversity vol. 5:1, Winter 2005. p.61 1 3 9 Alund, Aleksandra and Carl-Ulrik Schierup. 1991. Paradoxes of Multiculturalism: Essays on Swedish Society. Aldershot: Avebury Press, p. 1-3 1 4 0 ibid, p.41-43 1 4 1 Bjorgo, Tore. 2000. "Xenophobic Violence and Ethnic Conflict at the Local Level: Lessons from the Scandinavian Experience" in Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics: Comparative European Experiences. Koopman and Stratham, eds., p.368-385. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4 2 Nordin, Dennis Sven. 2005. A Swedish Dilemma: A Liberal European Nation's Struggle with Racism and Xenophobia, J990-2000. New York: University Press of America, p. 81-128 1 4 3 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p. 13 1 4 4 Bevelander, Pieter. 2006. "The Integration Challenges o f Sweden" Canadian Diversity, vol 5:1 Winter 2006, p.86 1 4 5 ibid. p. 86, see also statistical charts on p.89 1 4 6 ibid, p.90 1 4 7 ibid, p.88 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p. 13 1 4 9 Nordin, Dennis Sven. 2005. A Swedish Dilemma: A Liberal European Nation's Struggle with Racism and Xenophobia, 1990-2000. New York: University Press of America, p. 126-130 1 5 0 ibid p. 124-125 1 5 1 ibid. p. 120 1 5 2 ibid. p. 125 ' Joppke, Christian and Ewa Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 14 1 5 4 United Nations. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Sweden. 0 J/05/200J. CERD/C/304 /Add . l03 . available at^ 1 5 5 Nordin, Dennis Sven. 2005. A Swedish Dilemma: A Liberal European Nation's Struggle with Racism and Xenophobia, J990-2000. New York: University Press of America, p. 125 1 5 6 Qadeer, Mohammad. 2003 "Ethnic Segregation in a Multicultural City: The case of Toronto, Canada." C E R I S W P #28, Joint Centre for Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS) , Toronto. Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p. 12 158 Entzinger, Hans. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism: The Case of the Netherlands" In Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 91 States. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (eds). p.59-86. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. 1 5 9 Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation- States. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMil lan. p. 12 1 6 0 ibid, p.9-12. 1 6 1 Kymlicka, Wi l l . 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1 6 2 Vertovec, Steven. 2006. "The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain" R I I M W P 06-14 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 1 6 3 Kivisto, Peter. 2002. Muiticulturalism in a Global Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd . ; Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double-consciousness. London: Verso Press. 1 6 4 Vertovec, Steven. 2006. "The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain" R I I M W P 06-14 Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM), Vancouver. 1 6 5 Kivisto, Peter. 2002. Muiticulturalism in a Global Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd . ; Joppke, Christian and E w a Morawska (eds). 2003. Towards